the federal employee, naval logistics and motivation. · maslow 29 herzberg 37 argyris 44 mcgregor...
Post on 18-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, NAVAL LOGISTICSAND MOTIVATION
Edward McCown Straw
DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93943-5002
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, NAVAL LOGISTICS
AND MOTIVATION
BY
Edward McCown Straw
Bachelor of Science
United States Naval Academy, 1961
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Government and
Business Administration of The George WashingtonUniversity in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Business Administration
May, 1972
Thesis directed by . ;
Michael M. Harmon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Business Administration
TU6627
NAVAL POSTGMDUATE SCHOOL 9j7,9fM0NTSRS5Y. CALIF. 93940
LIBRARYNAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIF. 9394Q
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Background and Thesis Objective 1
Scope 3
Primary and Subsidiary Research Questions .... 4
Research Methodology 5
Organization of the Study 6
II. CONCEPTS OF MOTIVATION 8
Motivation Defined 8Motivation and Logistics 12
III. THE ROOTS OF MOTIVATIONAL THEORY: AN HISTORICALPERSPECTIVE 16
The Precursors 16
The Giants 22
Likert 25
Mas low 29Herzberg 37
Argyris 44
McGregor 47
IV. MOTIVATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND TOOLS 53
The Search 53Incentive Awards and the Navy 57Other Navy Motivational Tools 67Summary 69
V. THE REAL WORLD 70
Is There a Problem 71
Why 83Listen to Them Talk 95
Some Rusty Tools 103
A Logistical Work Group 107
Before , 108
After 110
Analysis 112
n
Chapter
VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 122
APPENDIX A. Thesis Questionnaire to Customers ......... 127
APPENDIX B. Thesis Questionnaire to Supply Officers 130
APPENDIX C. Substitute Questionnaire to Employees ....... 131
APPENDIX D. Original Thesis Questionnaire to Employees .... 132
APPENDIX E. OCMM Self-Evaluation Questionnaire to Employees . . 135
APPENDIX F. OCMM Self-Evaluation Questionnaire to Supervisors . 137
BIBLIOGRAPHY 140
m
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. FY 1971 Incentive Award Statistics 65
2. Federal Employee Characteristic Rating by Customers. 75
3. Federal Employee Reaction to Field Problems as Seenby Customers 77
4.. Federal Employee Motivation Rating by SelectedSupply Officers 80
5. Enployee Self-Analysis 81
6. Employee F'totivating Factors 84
7. Employee Selection of Factors Contributing to JobDissatisfaction 86
8. Comparison of Table 6 and 7 87
9. ASO Results vs OCMM Study 91
10. Summary of fiotivators . 94
11. Incentive Award Statistics - ASO vs Navy 104
IV
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Navy Inventory Control Points 14
2. Navy Logistics Cycle 14
3. Hierarchy of Needs--Physiological Dominant 31
4. Safety Need When Dominant in the Need Structure ... 32
5. Affiliation Need When Dominant in the NeedStructure 33
6. Esteem Need When Dominant in the Need Structure ... 34
7. Self-Actucilization when Dominant in the NeedStructure 36
8. Chain of Command 72
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM BACKGROUND AND THESIS OBJECTIVE
It takes little more than a glance at a daily newspaper to
recognize that the United States is experiencing revolution on a
multitude of fronts. Sandwiched between the changes in male hair
styles, and the volatile possibilities of youth, revolutions of
every size, shape, and composition are occurring. Among the better
known examples are revolutions which could be called: moral,
ecological, technological, economic, medical, consumer, transportation,
leisure time and minority group. A common point in most of these
revolutions is that they require a financial base. It is becoming
quite clear that Congress is, and will continue to face ever
increasing pressure to provide this financial base for the more
"humanitarian" of these revolutions. It is also clear that a portion
of this required funding will be provided from Congressional
reductions in defense spending. This possibility of
Arguments might be raised regarding the FY 1973 budgetwherein hu.ianitarian spending exceeds defense spending, yet thedefense budget is greater, in absolute dollars, than in 1972. However,it is felt that consideration must be given to the fact that the DOD
budget has been reduced in terms of percentage of GNP. Coupled withcontinually rising weapons acquisition costs, DOD is facing reducedinputs. For a detailed account of this subject, see Fred Lardner,"Defense Spending - Up or Down," U.S. Naval Academy Alumni AssociationMagazine , March, 1972, p. 25.
1
2
reduced resources, becomes the doorway to this thesis. Certainly a
military manager faced with reduced funding must become extremely
employee conscious. However, this reasoning is not meant to convey
the opinion that a manager has to be saddled with resource reductions
before becoming employee conscious. In fact, the idea for this
thesis came during a period when funding was more than sufficient,
yet employee output appeared to be far less than maximum capacity.
The point being made is that military managers now facing the problem
of achieving adequate levels of performance will have to meet an
even greater challenge, when the current problem is aggravated by
resource reductions. The solution to the problem, appears to lie in
finding the key to obtaining a higher degree of output per individual
employee, and this key, at least to this author, is represented by
the subject of motivation. It is strongly felt that increased output
from Federal employees requires improvement of current motivational
methodology. There is little doubt in the author's mind that small
improvements in employee motivational levels will reap large dividends
in productivity and performance.
Accordingly, it will be the objective of this thesis to study
the motivational level of the Federal employee, to surface constraints
to higher motivation, and to assess the adequacy of the prevailing
Federal motivational philosophy, and its accompanying motivational
tools. Further, the study will examine the theories of modern
behavioral science literature, and show the relationship between the
theory, and the results of a field study at a Navy operational command.
The field study will include an analysis of a work group, through use
of "before and after" methodology.
SCOPE
The subject of motivation and the Federal service worker is
indeed broad and complex. Certainly it is logical that because of the
large variation in missions among departments and agencies, that the
roots of motivation must also be varied. Although the author believes
that an agency-by-agency motivational study is necessary, it is also
recognized that the size of this task would be monumental. Therefore,
this thesis will not undertake a motivational analysis that includes
all Federal workers. In fact, this thesis will not attempt to capture
the problems of the Department of Defense, or even the Department of
the Navy. What the thesis will do, is to focus on an area small
enough to be manageable, yet of major significance to the defense
posture of this country. The Federal employees chosen for study,
work in an environment called Naval logistics--this Federal worker
is involved with the billions of dollars spent each year to keep the
2wheels of defense turning.
A second reason for selection of Navy logistical personnel
for this study, is that the author has had ten years experience in
the field, and directly supervised a work group of fifty individuals
during the past four years.
Hopefully, the results obtained through this study of Naval
logistics personnel will provide evidence for brvader application
within DOD, or even other federal activities. However, further
2Naval logistics is synonymous with the Naval Material Command.
There are approximately 200,000 civilian employees in this command,that has total logistical support responsibility for the U.S. Navy.
4
comment on this possibility will be withheld until the final chapter's
conclusions.
PRIMARY AND SUBSIDIARY RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following primary research question was designed to permit
an all encompassing study of what appears to the author to be the heart
of any motivational undertaking, while at the same time keeping within
the boundaries established in the previous section:
In the field of Naval logistics, does the present philosophy
relative to motivation of Federal employees need revitalization?
The answer to this primary question will be obtained through
a systematic attack on the following four interrelated subsidiary
questions:
1. What is motivation, and what is its relationship with Naval
logistics?
2. What is the present Federal motivational philosopy, and what
motivational tools are available to the Navy managtir?
3. Based on a field study of a major Navy logistical activity,
what is the employee motivational level, and are the motivational
tools adequate?
4. Do the motivational theories of Likert, Mas low, Herzberg,
Argyris and McGregor explain the results of a "before and after"
study of a logistical work group?
5
RESEARCH fCTHODOLOGY
Research for this thesis consisted of a two-phased program:
First, all data relative to the "before and after" study of the
operational work group was obtained directly by the author during a
two year period as supervisor of the F4J "Phantom" aircraft inventory
control section, at the Naval Aviation Supply Office in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Additional research at ASO was conducted over the past six
months, and included the use of questionnaires, and interviews
obtained during a one week field trip in January. Research relative
to "outsider" opinions of ASO personnel was obtained through use cf
questionnaires with ASO customers (Naval Air Station personnel),
interviews with civilian industrial contractors, and ten Navy supply
officers.
Phase two of the research, consisted of library work on the
history of motivational thought, and the theories of the "classic"
behavioral scientists- This library research was also backed up by
copies of instructions, and reports furnished by the Civil Service
Commission, and the Office of Motivation and Incentives, Department
of the Navy. This written data is supplemented by interviews with
top management in both these activities.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The organization of this thesis is intended to lead in
logical sequence toward results that will support a conclusion
regarding the question of revitalization of the motivational philosophy
within the world of Naval logistics.
Following this introduction. Chapter 11 sets the stage for
the entire study. Motivation is defined, and its relationship and
importance to Naval logistics is presented. Chapter III, is a
historical survey of the author's interpretation of the most significant
contributions to the history of motivational theory. The second half
of Chapter III is a close examination of the theories of the giants
of modern motivational literature-- Likert, Maslow, Herzberg, Argyris
and McGregor. This chapter provides the necessary framework required
for the operational analysis that follows.
Chapter IV focuses on the prevailing motivational philosophy
of the Civil Service Commission, and discusses the motivational tools
available to the Navy manager. Highlighted in this chapter is a
detailed look at the Federal Incentive Awards Program, which the Navy
considers its major motivational tool. The chapter also covers the
Navy Merit Promotion Program, and the Performance Appraisal and
Rating Program. Included as justification for much of the written
word that is referenced in this chapter, are interviews with key
personnel from the Civil Service Commission and the Navy Office of
Civilian Manpower Management.
Chapter V is the main thrust of the thesis, and represents a
look at the motivation in a "real world," environment. Questionnaires
and interviews are utilized to determine an employee motivational
level, and to identify motivational needs. The effectiveness of the
actual motivational tools is examined, and the aforementioned "before
and after" look is taken at a logistical work group. This research
report, actually describes the profile of a group of employees before
and after they were assigned to a specially created work group, and
shows the effects of their motivational level on logistical support.
Chapter IV also presents a unique section entitled "Listen to Them
Talk," wherein a sample of interesting comments from employees is
used to provide additional detail on the motivating factors identified
by the questionnaire research. The chapter concludes with a section
that examines these same motivating factors and their relationship to
the work group, and the Chapter III theories. A brief summary of the
thesis is presented in the final chapter, in a format corresponding to
conclusions reached on the subsidiary research questions. Using these
subsidiary conclusions as a base, the thesis closes with an answer to
the primary question, a specific recommendation, and a "glimmer of
sunshine."
CHAPTER II
CONCEPTS OF MOTIVATION
It seems that the logical progression in discussing the
subject of motivation is first a (iefinition of the term. An examination
of the word "motivation" is therefore the main thrust of this chapter.
In addition, the importance of motivation within the parameters of Naval
logistics is discussed.
MOTIVATION DEFINED
The research employed for the definition, admittedly, was quite
frustrating in that eyery book, ewery author has a different description
of the term. Perhaps Paul T. Young expresses the personal feelings of
this author most vividly:
Motivation is a word that wears a nalo. It is like
justice , democracy , freedom . Everybody approves of it,
yet there is little agreement to what it means.
1
In view of the plethora of definitions available, it is felt that a
dictionary might be the most appropriate starting point: "motivation--
that which motivates; inducement; iPcentive--motivate- to provide with
2a motive." This same source, fortunately, is a bit more descriptive
Paul T. Young, Motivation and Emotion: A Survey of the
Determinants of Human and Animal Activity (New YorF: John Wi ley and
Sons , Inc. , 1961) , p.xi.
2The Random House Dictionary of the English Language , Jess Stein,
ed. , Unabridged Edition, 1967, p. 934.
8
9
of the term "motive": "some inner drive, impulse, intention that
causes a person to act or behave in a certain way; incentive." So,
combining the most significant features of the above definitions,
one might in a more rhetorical manner state that motivation is an
intangible quality resulting from regulation of individual behavior,
and that motivational theory relates to the methodology of providing
a force or motive that results in behavioral movement in a desired
4direction. To this author, then, motivational theory, in an organi-
zational context, relates to the process by which individuals are
stimulated to action toward the accomplishment of organizational goals
and objectives. It is considered that Robert Dubin provides a basis
for these personal conclusions:
Motivation may be defined as the complex of forces startingand keeping a person at work in an organization. To put it
generally, motivation starts and maintains activity along a
prescribed line. Motivation is something that moves the person
to action, and continues him on the course of action initiatedClearly there are forces inside the person starting and main-taining activity. Whether we call them drives, instincts,wishes, needs or tension states, they can be described as
mechanisms of the organism. .. .^
^Ibid .
4This sentence takes the intangible tone of Yojng, and coirbines
the Random House definitions into a single personal definition. Theapproach, however, is similar to that of Ernest Dichter in MotivatingHuman Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971), pp. 1-10.
5Robert Dubin, Human Relations in Administration (2nd ed. ;
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 49.
10
Kolasa, considers the inside force as a need, in what he calls "the
motivational process." As he explains it:
A need is a lack or deficit of something within theorganism .... When it arises in an individual, it is
the beginning of a chain of events. Something happens,some behavior occurs . . . and is directed toward a
goal. Arriving at the goal satisfies the need and themotivational process is complete . . . .^
It logically follows, therefore, that motivational theory deals
with the identification of these complex forces or needs, and the
determination of methodology that will permit regulation of the so-
called "mechanisms" toward desirable behaviorel patterns, i.e.,
behavioral patterns which lead to efficient and timely attainment7
of organizational goals.'
Young support- this regulation of behavior theme, but
emphasizes the need for control of environmental influences:
Motivation is not restricted to the process of evokingbehavior; it includes an analysis of environmentalconditions which sustain activity and which regulateand direct its patterning .... the accounting for
the purposiveness of behavior."
Dubin has stated it even more profoundly:
When we see motivation as involving an exchange betweenthe individual and his social environment, vye have the
key in understanding the meaning of motivation in organizations,
It can now make sense to talk about "motivating soldiers to
fight," ... or motivating workers." In each instance we
are talking about someone imbedded in a social system, an
organization. These statements imply tfiat we reach outside
Blair, J. Kolasa, Introduction to Beha vioral Sciences for
Business (New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc., 1969), pp. 249-250.
Dichter, Motivating Human Behavior , p. 17.
oYoung, Motivation and Emotion , p. 17.
11
in order to get them to perform to their highest level ofexpectation. Indeed, it is only because we can picturemotivation as a form of exchange that is it even meaningfulto talk about "motivating organization members." Withoutthis notion of exchange between the person and the socialsystem in which he operates, motivation would be beyondsocial control, and the managers of organizations would behelpless to channel motivations, or to modify the level at
which they ope rate.
^
The late Douglas McGregor was also a strong proponent of a favorable
organizational climate:
A statement of strategy that has long seemed to me to beconsistent with the goals of economic enterprise on onehand, and with . . . the motivational nature of man on
the other is this: Management must seek to createconditions (an organizational environment) such thatmembers of the organization . . . can best achieve theirown goals by directing their efforts toward the goals ofthe organization. 10
A summary at this point seems in order. Motivation as seen
by the previous writers, is a complex of forces that start and keep
a person at work~-something that moves a person to action in a certain
direction. Motivation is an inner mechanism drive, yet can be
induced by an outer influence such as an exchange with the organizational
environment, or a proper incentive. Motivation helps answer the
fundamental question as to why, or what it is that makes people do
what they do, and finally motivation is a major factor in determining
an individual's ultimate performance. Dubin adds to this summary:
Motivation then comes down to this. We all possess the basicinstinctional drives. These do not by themselves result in
determining behavioirs or the level of effort and performance
gDubin, Human Relations in Administration , pp. 46-47.
lODouglas McGregor, The Professional Manager , ed. by Caroline
McGregor and Warren H. Bennis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1967), p. 11.
12
put into the behaviors. The social environment provides theguidelines by which choices among alternative behaviors aremade, and in exchange received from the individual his
i-,
conformity to the appropriate expectations placed upon him.
Only for the sake of emphasizing the direction of this study is
the following paragraph considered necessary:
Kotivation will be considered throughout the balance of
this paper to be an inner, instinctual mechanism that can be regulated
by outside influences. It is the motivational theory that provides
the best outside influences (methodology), that this study seeks—
the theories that provide the individual employee with that inner
drive that attains organizational goals, or as Herzberg so perfectly
commented:
If I kick my dog, he will move. And when I want him to move
again, what must I do? I must kick him again. Similarly, I
can charge a man's battery, and then recharge it, and rechargeit again. But it is only when he has his own generator that wetalk about motivation. He then needs no outside stimulation.He wants to do it.^^
MOTIVATION AND LOGISTICS
This second section of Chapter II, coupled with the previous
examination of the term "motivation," completes the first subsidiary
question of this study: "What is motivation, and what is its relation-
ship with Naval logistics?"
Dubin, Human Relations in Administration , -jp. 46-47.
12Frederick Herzberg, "One Kiore Time: How Do You Motivate
Employees?" Harvard Business Review , Vol. XLII , No.l, (January-
February, 1968) , p. 55.
13
On the surface, it v;ould seem that motivation relates to
Naval logistics, just as motivation might relate to the automotive
industry, or to any environment with people involved in a work
situation. While this paper, will not totally dispute this logic,
it will attempt to show a more "urgent" relationship between moti-
vation and logistics, than found between motivation and other work
situations. It will show motivation as an extremely critical factor
in the logistics operation.
First, a look at this operation seems appropriate. There are
approximately 200,000 federal employees involved in the field of
13logistics within the Department of the Navy. These individuals are
responsible for world-wide logistical support of the Navy's vast
inventories of ships and aircraft. The logistical system that
employs these workers, revolves around the four Inventory Control
Points (ICP's) shown on the next page in Figure 1. These ICP's
designate, procure, distribute and control all spare parts, for repair
of Navy ships and aircraft. Each ICP is designated, as noted in
Figure 1, by the type of material under its cognizance. Figure 2,
also on the next page, shows the logistics cycle. Using the ICP
as a logical point of entry, it is possible to quickly and briefly
show the overall operatbn. The ICP, in conjunction with technical
supervision from a Naval Systems Command, designates and purchases
spare parts from industrial contractors. Upon completion of manufacture
by the contractor, the ICP directs distribution of the material throughout
13This total was provided by the Office of Civilian Manpower
Management, Department of the Navy, on February 14, 1972.
OfflECTRONlcS SUPPLY 0?PKS.GS£AT lAKES© aJ:iHI£^i PARTS CONTROL
)AViAT<ort SUPPLYofF/C£,PHiLAFuel supply OFFiCC,iA/ASH
COMTRACTOR
MAT'L MAT'L
STOCK POlMTFig. 2. --Navy Logistics Cycle
15
the world to the applicable Navy stock points. These stock points are
shore locations ,i .e. , shipyards, supply centers, and air stations
throughout the world. They, in turn, hold the material until required
by a customer (shown in Figure two as a Naval aircaraft located
somewhere at sea on an attack aircraft carrier). The customer in
this example requires an item not carried in the ship's inventory, so
the requirement is transmitted electronically to the applicable ICP.
The ICP through its "real time" inventory control capability locates
the material at the stock point shown, and by computer directs the
stock point to airship the material to the aircraft carrier. While
this example portrays a smooth functioning ADP operation, it also
indicates the need for a behind the scenes "manual" operation of
enormous proportions. The system requires people to make it function
properly--people to purchase the right quality, the right quantity,
at the right time--people to feed the "real-time" system— people to
keep the funds flowing and the wheels turning. These are the people
this paper is interested in--the people who support the fleet. They
must, at all costs, be motivated to the highest level possible. As
in industry, it is not the degree of profit at stake--it is the
security of the United States at stake, and in many cases involves
the lives of those ensuring this security. This is the point referred
to at the beginning of this section, that the motivation of the
federal worker, i.e., how well he does his job, is a crucial ingredient
to the success of logistics, and makes the relationship, in this
writer's mind, quite urgent.
CHAPTER III
THE ROOTS OF MOTIVATIONAL THEORY: AN
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
THE PRECURSORS
The history of motiv -tional theory is well documented in the
literature of experimental psychology, and it is indeed interesting
to note that the yery roots of the subject stem largely from the
concepts of Darwinian evolution. However, the purpose of this
survey, fortunately falls within the parameters of motivation as
applied to work, and presents a more manageable undertaking. On the
other hand, while the psychological side is chronologically well
documented, the collection of the most significant achievements in
work motivation proved quite frustrating. In that, this writer was
unable to find any single source that had previously taken a histori-
cal approach, the achievements noted are a personal opinion of the
most important events.
One can go back as far as Nebuchadnezzar in 604 B.C. and find
writings that show a distinct relationship between work and motivation'
C.N.Cofer and M. H. Appley, Motivating: Theory and Research(new York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1965) , p. 19.
16
17
writings thtit tell of incentive payments, in food, for individual
2spinning and weaving accomplishments.
A second important jump takes one to the Soho factory, in 1800,
where James Watt and Matthew Boulton not only predated the scientific
management theories of Babbage, Taylor, and Gilbreath, but also
pursued a course of motivational methodology that was a century ahead
of its time. Watt and Boulton paid incentive wages based on a piece
rate system, established an insurance society for workers, and were
the first to recognize the effects of a clean environment on productive
output. They even went so far as to whitewash foundry walls to
counteract darkness and dirt--a procedure that drew laughs from other
English industrial activities, but a procedure that reaped profitable
3dividends for the Soho foundry.
Although there seems to be no documented evidence to support
the connection, Robert Owen's practices at New Lanark in 1810 follow
closely those of the successful Soho operation. Owen, who is recognized
as the "father of personnel management," had a personal philosophy that
"man is the creature of circumstances," and appreciated the vital part
that the human factor represented in industry. He was decades ahead of
his time in proposing that at least as much attention be paid to the
welfare of human machines, as to inanimate machines. Believing that
the volume and quality of a worker's output were influenced by
2Claude S. George, J., The History of Management Thought
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 11.
^Ibid ., p. 59.
^Ibid ., p. 61.
18
environment both on and off the job, Owen's labor policies were
5paternalistic. In a speech before a group of factory owners, Owen
stated:
Your living machines may be easily trained and directed toprocure a large increase of pecuniary gain. Money spent onemployees might give a 50 to 100 per cent return as opposedto a 15 per cent return on machinery. The economy of livingmachinery is to keep it neat and clean, treat it withkindness that its mental movements might not experience toomuch irritating friction.^
Unfortunately, although Owen's policies attracted wide attention,
they drew little imitation.
The next major step, involving a motivational base, was the
development of the first beneficial suggestion system by Charles
Babbage, in 1832. Babbage stated: "... eyery person connected with
it should derive more advantage from applying any improvement he might
discover . . . his output will reflect this advantage, and his reward
should be commensurate."
Continuing this historical framework, the most significant
event in the mid-1800's was the first known profit sharing plan.
Henry R. Towne, president of Yale and Towne, designed a plan that
not only guaranteed a definite wage to each employee, but one that
split profits that exceeded a scientifically designed standard,
o
fifty-fifty between employer and employee. While Towne is most
^Ibid .
^Ibid .
Charles Babbage, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers(London: Charles Knight, 1832) , p. 250.
o
George, The History , p. 81.
19
famous for his inspiration of Frederick W. Taylor, his profit plan must
be recorded as "revolutionary" in terms of work and motivation.
The literature of management theory credits Frederick W. Taylor
as the "father of scientific management," while at the same time
providing evidence that many of his theories were demonstrated earlier
gat Soho, and by Babbage, Metcalf and Towne. However, no one can
dispute the genius of this man--he, in more modern terminology, "put
it all together," and most importantly, documented his work for the
world-to see. Included in his \<ritings are an extremely elaborate
piece-rate incentive program that clearly represented his knowledge
and recognition of worker motivation.
Frank Gilbreth, another of the pioneers in scientific manage-
ment, turned his brilliance to the subject of human relations upon his
marriage to psychologist, Lillian Moller. These two, believed in the
development of man to his fullest potential, through effective training,
improved environments, and a healthy psychological outlook. "The Gilbreths
were interested in improving the totality of man and his environment."
Henry L. Gantt was a contemporary and protege of Frederick
Taylor, but differed from Taylor by his strong feelings for humanistic
QJoseph L. Massie, Essentials of Man agement (2nd ed. ; Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 15.
Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management(New York: Harper & Bros., 1911) , pp. 129-30.
George, The History , p. 99.
20
values. This combination, his knowledge of Taylor's scientific methods,
and his humanistic feelings, led to the design of a comprehensive task-
and-bonus wage system. The system was based on Taylor's differential
piece-rate methods but was, in Gantt's words: "as far as possible
removed from the old-fashioned method of fixing piece rates from records
12of total time taken to do a job." Instead, the time allowed was
based on standard shop conditions, and a first class performance. If
the employee conpliited his assigned task, he received a bonus, but if
he did not finish, he only received the daily rate. Unlike Taylor's
system, the man was not penalized, through his pay, for a substandard
performance. Wherever Gantt introduced this system, records indicated
13that production often more than doubled. Gantt was probably the
first man in history truly convinced of the importance of the human
element in management. He conveyed this opinion, and his understanding
of principles th:^.t form many of today's most prominent motivational
theories, when he stated:
We all know that vjhen a man becomes interested in work, it
frequently becomes the source not only of his livelihood butof his amusement as well. The first step, then, in attemptingto establish habits of industry is to help the workman get
interested in his work. If this can be done, theformationof the proper habits follows as a matter of course, and
output will undoubtedly show improvement.!'^
Hugo Niunsterberg was the first psycliologist to actually push
for interaction between psychology and industry. His book in 1913,
12Henry L. Gantt, "A Gonus System for Rewarding Labor,"
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers , Vol. 23.
(1901), p. 373.[
13George, The History , p. 101.
Henry L. Gantt, "Industrial Leadership," in Gantt on Manage-ment , ed. by Alex W. Rathe (New York: American Management Association
1961), p. 45.
21
Psychology and Industrial Effici ency, proposed that the role of
psychologists in industry should be:
(1) to help find the best men fitted for the work(2) to determine under what psychological conditions thegreatest output per man could be achieved, and ,r
(3) to produce the influences that the human mind desired.
The period from 1913 to 1927 saw little more than a few far-
sighted managers practicing a form of human relations management on
their own. However, there also seemed to be a streak of moral ism
flowing through industrial America during this same stretch, which
set the stage for a formal human relations concept, and a base for
formal theories of industrial motivation. So, the stage was set, all
thc'^t was needed was a dramatic demonstration, and an articulable
16champion to command the attention of universal management.
The breakthrough occurred at the Hawthorne works of Western
Electric in Chicago. The articulate champion was Elton Mayo and the
theory that evolved from his Hawthorne studies showed that workers
tend to create informal groups to satisfy basic needs that modern
industry had ignored. Further, he showed that these informal grcups
could exert a far stronger pull on worker motivation than the combined
strength of money, discipline, working conditions, and even job
security. Map found that unless management recognized this group
spirit as the most CLiCial piece of the motivational puzzle, that
15Hugo Munsterberg, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency
(New York: Houghton Mifflin Company , 1913) , p. 24.
Saul Gellerman, Kotivation and Productivity ('^ew York:
American Management Association, 1963), p. 17.
^'^Ibid ., p. 19.
22
productivity would suffer as a result of group retaliation. Mayo
proved decisively that management must satisfy worker needs, and
above all make him feel important, if conflict, stalemate- and
stagnation were to be overcome. It only requires a quick glance to
see the depth of Mayo's perception. His philosophies on social
needs, the nature of man, and participative management have become
the springboard of most every advanced theory regarding work and
1
8
motivation. Since a major part of this thesis will be to examine
these advanced theories, and apply them to federal employee motiva-
tional problems, only the names of the giants involved will be
mentioned in conclusion of this historical overview.
The final section of this chapter will be devoted entirely to
a detailed description of the work of these modern giants--Likert
and the Michigan studies--Maslow and the hierarchy of needs--
Herzberg and the Pittsburg studies--Argyris and the organization, and
Douglas McGregor and the impact of management.
THE GIANTS
There is no single theory, or Tor that matter even a best
19theory, of employee motivation. Herzberg amplifies this hypothesis
as follows
:
The psychology of motivation is tremendously complex, and
what has been unraveled with any degree of assurance is
small indeed. Bjt the dismal ratio of knowledge to specu-
lation has not danpened the enthusiasm for new forms of
^^Ibid., pp. 21-31
19Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity, p. 175.
23
20snake oil that are constantly coming on the market ....
The quantity of "snake oil" on the market, since Mayo, created a
problem when it came time to pick the giants for inclusion in this
study. It must be admitted that the National Industrial Conference
Board assisted with the ultimate selection of Likert, Maslow,
21Herzberg, Argyris and McGregor. It will be the theories of these
men, that will be examined in the balance of this chapter, and that
will be applied to the problems encountered in the Navy field study,
in Chapter V. However, before commencing the theory examination, it
seems necessary to provide a framework on which to hang these theories,
Going back to Gellerman's statement that there is no best theory,
perhaps a framework will offer a degree of visability that will allow
selection of the theory that will best satisfy the problem involved.
The framework which appears most relevant to this situation, is
Schein's four assumptions on the nature of people. These assumptions
will be presented in their order of historical appearance. Schein
describes the first of these assumptions as follows:
The Rational -Economic Man
1. Man is primarily motivated by economic incentives, and
will do that which gets him the greatest economic gain.
2. Since economic incentives are under the control of the
organization, man is essentially a passive agent to be
manipulated, motivated and controlled by the organization.
Herzberg, "Or,e More Time," p. 53.
21A >urvey by the NICB of 302 firms indicated that the theories
of these five individuals influenced their procedures the most. See
the National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , Studies
in Personal Policy, No. 216 (New York: National Industrial Conference
Board, Inc., 1970), p. 10.
24
3. Man's feelings are esEentially irrational and must beprevented from interfering with his rational calculationof self-interest.
4. Ortjanizations can and must be designed in such a way as
to neutralize and control man's feelings and thereforehis unpredictcpble traits. 22
Schein continues by adding that the best evidence of this image comes
from the history of industry, but that fortunately. Mayo with his
Hawthorne studies showed that workers have motives and needs that do
23not fit the rational-economic man mold. Schein calls this assumption
The Social Man
1. Man is basically motivated by social needs and obtains his
basic sense of identity through relationships with others.
2. As a result of the industrial revolution and the rational-ization of work, meaning has gone out of work itself and
must therefore be sought in the social relationships on
the job.
3. Man is more responsive to social forces of the peer group
than to the incentives and controls of management.
4. Man is responsive to management to the extent that a super-
visor can meet a worker's social needs, and needs for
acceptance. 24
Schein 's third assumption is that of the "Self-Actualizing Man,"
which will be the starting point for the theories of the giants.
Schein presents this description of the Self-Actualizing Man:
1. Man's motives fall into classes which are arranged in a
hierarchy .... the lowliest of untalented men seeks
self-actualization, a sense of meaning and accomplishment
in his work, if his other needs are more or less filled.
2. Man seeks to be mature on the job and is capable of
being so ... .
3. Man is primarily self-motivated and self controlled ....4. There is no inherent conflict between self-actualization
and more effective organizational performance ... .25
22Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965) , p. 48.
23lbihd..,. p. 50.
2^Ibiid.,. p. 51.
25lbiid.,. p. 57.
25
The fourth assumption of man will be presented near the end
of this chapter, as a means of summarizing the theories discussed.
The previous three assunptions will be the framework for the theories
ahead, and as Schein put it:
Every manager makes assumptions about people. Whether he is
aware of these assumptions or not, they operate as a theoryor framework in terms of which he decides to deal with hissuperiors, peers, or subordinates .... The kinds ofassumptions a manager makes about the nature of people willdetermine his managerial strategy. 2°
RENSIS LIKERT
Likert became prominent in the field of behavioral science and
motivation, in 1947, as a researcher, and then as the foremost
interpreter of the University of Michigan studies. In these studies,
Likert and his colleagues focused on the attitudes and behavior of
first line supervi3Drs, and the resulting effect on the productivity of
their subordinates. It was found that departments with supervisors
who were primarily production oriented tended on the average to produce
less than departments with employee-centered supervisors. This reve-
lation clearly ran opposite to the classical theories that employee-
centered supervisors should have ill-disciplined and inefficient groups,
The examination as to why the results occurred, showed the differences
between the supervisors to be the k^ factor. Production-centered
supervisors tended to be authoritarian, arbitrary, defensive, and
^^Ibid ., p. 49.
27Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , p. 44.
26
resistant to influence; they gave detailed supervision on what to do
and how to do it; if things were not done correctly, they might even
do it themselves. The employee-centered supervisors tended to be
cooperative, democratic, amenable to influence, and more reasonable;
they gave subordinates a general outline of what was to be done and
allowed the workers to decide on the details of getting it done;
they assumed that workers were responsible, as indeed turned out to
be the case. Further, the production-centered supervisor ignored the
social and personal needs of the enployees, while the employee -centered
supervisor was sensitive to them. It was also learned in these studies
that there was considerable evidence that the supervisor's style and
28assumptions reflected those of his own boss. Clearly, the research
showed that emphasis on productivity at the expense of worker dignity
was self-defeating, and that the differences in productivity had been
built up gradually as the supervisor's style and the worker's motivation
29interacted. Confusion entered the studies, when a short run analysis
shov^ed that the production-centered approaches attained higher
production than employee-centered approaches. However, the researchers
found evidence that this short run advantage led to formation of anti-
30management groups that in the long run clearly hurt the organization.
28Schein, Organizational Psychology , p. 55
29Gellerman, f^oti vation and Productivity , p. 36.
30Schein, Organizational Psychology , p. 55.
27
Likert's explanation for the results of the Michigan studies
are most interesting. Rather than criticize management for rational-
economic man assumptions, Likert blames management for being entirely
too logical, too preoccupied with tangible results, and far too aloof
from personalities. In what he initially called a "modified theory
31of organization," Likert pointed to the need for management to
take more of an interest in people--that people .'".hould be considered
as assets in the business, and that damage to their morale or
motivation should be prevented like any other material or financial
32loss. Likert expounds on this theory even more dramatically in his
latest book The Human Organization , where he describes a human-asset
accounting system that allows a company to measure return-on-investment
33for people.
Continuing with his explanation of the Michigan studies,
Likert feels that the employee-centered supervisors understood that
responsibility for production is inherently the province of workers,
not supervisors, and that employees can function in self-disciplining
groups which require little or no supervisory pressure. These thoughts
31Rensis I. Likert, "A Motivational Approach to a Fiodified Theory
of Organiziion ciinrd f-lanagement," in Hodern Organization Theory , ed. by
Mason Haire. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.
32., . .
Ibid .
33Rensis I. Likert, The Human Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1967), p. 10.
28
regarding the relationship between the superior and the subordinate
clearly have become the pivotal variable in all Likert's related
34concepts. Gellennan says:
Likert sees the key to a productivity-motivated work force
as a supervisory style which enhances the workers' proprietor-ship of their jobs .... He pleads for a positive approach,for delegating control in order to make the satisfaction of
sel f-dii,cipline possible ... to give them, jurisdiction over ^.c
the fragment of the total enterprise that is under their noses . .."^
Likert made his greatest contributions in his book New Patterns
of Management , which was published in 1961. It is in this book, that
he presents his "group theory of organization," where the head of the
unit deals with employees collectively, and consequently conceives of
his responsibility and accountability in terms of the group as a whole.
In this theory, he shows the organization as a mosaic of overlapping
and interacting groups, with effectiveness determined by the quality
of overall communication. The key to this communication, is the
"linking-pin," or the individual who is a member of two groups--a
superior in one group and a subordinate in the other. Through a good
"linking-pin," the policies of management are communicated downward
and the needs, goals and feelings of employees are transmitted
upward. A further theory of Likert that goes hand-in-hand with
the "linking-pin" concept is the theory of "interaction-influence."
As Likert views it, the amount of productivity a manager
34National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science ,, p. 34,
35Gellerman, [''Motivation and Productivity , p. 46.
Rensis I. Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961) , pp. 112-113.
29
attains from his group depends on how well he "interacts" with the
group, i.e., the extent to which he considers group opinions in his
procedural decisions, and how much "influence" he has with his own
37superiors. Just as the "interaction-influence" theory is seen as
an integral part of the "overlapping group" and "linking-pin" theories,
so is Likert's concept of "supportive-relationships." Likert sees
this concept as one of his most important, and calls it a concept of
open communication, wherein an individual is made to feel by manage-
ment that he is a necessary cog in the wheel, and that the organization
is genuinely interested in him as an individual. Likert sees the
38"supportive-relationship" as totally essential to worker motivation.
This concludes the examination of the first of the selected
giants --certainly it can be understood that space does not permit
coverage of eyery contribution--hopefully , the high spots have been
satisfactorily relayed. Chapter V, will attempt application of Likert
and the next four giants to the real world problems of the Navy.
ABRAHAM FAS LOW
In his book. Motivation and Personality , f^aslow espouses a
theory that man is motivated by his internal desire to satisfy various
levels of human needs. Maslow chose to categorize and rank these needs
in a conceptual hierarchy beginning with the most primative and urgent,
39and ranging upward to an apex of higher needs. Maslow identified
37 ibid ., pp. 178-191.
^^Ibid ., p. 207.
39National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 17.
30
this breakdown as his "Hierarchy of Needs":
1. Physiological needs2. Safety needs3. Need for belongingness and love (affiliation)4. Need for esteem5. Need for self-actualization. ''^O
This hierarchy of need concept is a v/idely used basis for much of the
motivational "snake oil" on the market today. Maslow best explains his
purpose for bringing order and unity to a span of thought that has
become so very important to the subject of motivation:
.My classification of basic needs is in part an attempt toaccount for unity behind the ap;.'arent diversity among men,and from culture to culture. No claim is made that it is
ultimate or universal. The claim is made, however, that it
is more ultimate, more universal, more basic .."
. and makesa closer approach to human characteristics. 41
A more detailed look at the hierarchy seams appropriate at
this point. The following discussion will begin with the lower level
physiological needs, and |»roceed to the higher order needs of self-
actualization. Accompanying the discussion of each level will be a
graphic portrayal which emphasizes the idea that a need is dominant,
and a motivator until it is satisfied, at which time the next level
42need becomes the motivator of behavior.
40 /
Abraham H. Fiaslow, Ktotivation and Personality (New York:Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. , 1954) , pp. 80-92.
^hbid ., p. 102.
42The thought of this paragraph, and Figures 3-7 are taken from
Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of OrganizationalBehavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 20-29.
31
Priorities Exolained
Physiological Needs
As a starting point for motivation theory in application,
r^aslow insists that all physiological needs must be answered. If a
man does not have air to breathe, or bread to eat, it is likely that
any motivators influencing himv/ould answer his physical needs
43rather than any needs of a higher level. Once these physiological
needs are fulfilled (satisfied), however, Maslow describes how man is
ready to move to the second and subsequent levels in the need hierarchy:
The physiological needs, when gratified, cease to existas active determinants of organizers of behavior. Theynow exist only in. a potential fashion in the sense thatthey may eirerge again to dominate the organism if theyare thwarted. A want that is satisfied is no longer a
want. Behavior is dominated only by unsatisfied needs.
If htinger is satisfied it becomes unimportant in the
current dynamics of an individual.
Physiological(Primary)
Safety
Affiliation(Acceptance)
Esteem(Recognition)
Self-Actualization
Fig. 3. --Hierarchy of Needs--Physiological Dominant
^-^Ibid ., p. 103,
32
As soon as physiological needs are satisfied, safety needs
will rise to be dominant. The hierarchy will now look as represented
in Figure 4.
Safety Needs
The safety needs include actual physical safety, as well as a
feeling of being safe from injury both physical and emotional; there-
fore,a feeling of emotional security as well as a feeling of freedom
44from illness would be included in this category.
Safety
Physiological Affiliation
Esteem
Sel f-Actual i zati on
Fig. 4. --Safety need when dominant in the need structure
Belongingness and Love Needs
Also known as the recognition needs or affiliation needs,
this set of human requirements serves as a basic reason for the
44National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 18.
33
existence of organizations in society. Realizing that most of man's
actions occur in groups, such as the family and the work group, these
needs, if properly accommodated, satisfy an individual's desire to be
liked, to be accepted, to be loved. Friends and family, and the
approval of fellow man, become most important. To be without love,
understanding, and approval would be felt most keenly. It should be
added here that love, as used in the context of Maslow's hierarchy,
is not synonymous with sex. Sexual behavior is probably multi-
determined, and is a function of several of the hierarchial levels.
In simplest terms it may be considered, however, like hunger or the
45need to sleep, in physiological terms. Summarized, this category
46represents a need for other people,
Affiliation
Security Esteem
Physiological Self-Actualization
Fig. 5.--Affiliation need when dominant in the need structure
45Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964), p. 49.
AC
National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 17,
34
Esteem Needs
The need for esteem is based on the belief that a person has a
basic need for self respect and the esteem of others. Mas low further
describes this need as:
. . . the desire for strength, for achievement, for adequacy,for mastery and competence, for confidence in the fact ofthe world, and for independence and freedom. Then there is
the desire for reputation or prestige, status, dominance,recognition, attention, importance, and appreciation. 47
Affiliation
Esteem
Self-Actualization
Safety
Physiological
Fig. 6.-- Esteem need when dominant in the need structure
Self-Actualization Needs
This need is difficult to describe. Self-actualization is the
process whereby one realizes the real self by becoming what one is
capable of becoming. In other words, self-actualization is the process
47Mas low, Kiotivation and Personality , p. 90,
^^ 48of making actual the individual's perception of his "self." For
example, it is not unusual to see a successful and accomplished
individual start anew, delve into the unknown, or strive for the
impossible. Unless a man is doing what he is capable of doing, or
being what he wants to be, "doing his own thing" in contemporary
terminology, a part of his complete make-up is missing and is not
satisfied. Maslow considered this the pinnacle of human aspirations,
at the top of the hierarchy, and said that: "A musician must make
music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be
uVdinately happy. Vihat a man can be , he must be. This need we cal'l
49self-actuali tion."
Through the eyes of management it is easily seen that self-
actualization is the need for workers (some at least, if not all) to
push and prod themselves continually as the need may dictate, to
reach higher and never-qui te- arrived at goals. But why, it may be
asked, are some people quite content to remain in place, never advancing
beyond a certain established level of achievement? The answer lies in
the fact that people are different, and that their range of motives,
while certainly alike in conforming to toe hierarchial need pattern,
50is sufficiently different to permit satisfaction at varying levels.
48National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 18.
49Maslow, yiotivation and Personality , p. 91.
^^Ibid . p. 92.
36
Security
Self-Actualization
Esteem
Affiliation
Physiological
Fig. 7.-- Self-actualization when dominant in the need structure
It mut be added, however, that even the individual capable of seeking
self-actualization, rarely becomes "self-actualized," for as Maslow
contends: "By its very essence, self-actualizi o;. is a self-perpetuating
ongoing process. It implies that each new process begets further
'SIinvolvement. Therefore a person is never self-actualized.
The manager! ;1 strategy, if one accepts Maslow 's theory,
changes drastically. The strategy appears to take on less concern
for being considerate and friendly, and more concern for making the
work more challenging and meaningful. It encompasses giving people
more autonomy and responsibility, and moving them along in terms of
52recognition or advancement for positive achievements on the job.
51
52
Ibid ., p. 93.
Massie, Essential of Management , p. 151.
37
FREDERICK HERZBERG
Herzberg is best known in behavioral science circles for his
53"motivation-hygiene" theory. This theory grew out of research on
job attitudes of 200 accountants and engineers in the Pittsburgh area,
and has been tested over time through a total of 1685 interviews
54throughout the country. These interviews essentially asked individuals
to recall specific incidents in their recent experience which made them
feel either particularly good or particularly bad about their jobs.
They were also asked to indicate what effects these incidents had on
55their attitudes, and their following job performance. Prior to an
analysis of the results of these interviews, it is important to
understand Herzberg 's reasons for studying job attitudes in the first
place:
To industry, the payoff for a study of job attitudes would be
increased productivity, decreased turnover, decreasedabsenteeism, and smoother working relations .... To the
individual an understanding of the forces that lead to
improved morale would bring greater happiness and greaterself-realization .^^
The results of the study showed that when individuals felt good about
their jobs, it was usually because something had happened which showed
53National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 20.
^4Herzberg, "One More Time," p. 39.
55Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, Barbara Snyderman,
The Motivation To Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons , Inc., 1959),p. 141.
Ibid. , p. ix.
38
they were doing their work particularly well, or that they were
becoming more expert in their professions. Good feelings were, in
other words, keyed to the specific tasks that the men performed,
rather than to background factors such as money, security or working
conditions. On the other hand, when the individuals felt bad it was
usually due to some disturbance relative to a background factor, that
57caused them to feel they were receiving unfair treatment. Another
way of stating these results is that:
. . . subjects most often mentioned job experiences or factors
related to a good feeling in terms of job content. These werecategorized as content factors. Factors or experiencesmentioned in connection with a bad feeling about the job weremost often related to the surrounding or peripheral aspects ofthe job, and they were called context factors. ^°
Herzberg called the job content factors satis fiers or motivators,
59and the job context factors dissatisfiers or hygienes. The motivators
that Herzberg identified were:
(1) Achievement(2) Recognition
(3) Work content
(4) Responsibility
(5) Advancement
(6) Growth. 60
He categorized the hygienes as:
^^Ibid ., pp. 57-95.
58National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 20,
59Herzberg, The Motivation to Work , p. 113.
fifi
National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 20,
39
(1) Company and policy administration
(2) Supervision
(3) Working conditions
(4) Interpersonal relations
(5) Salary(6) Status
(7) Job security
(8) Personal life.°'
Herzberg uses these two distinct categories (motivators and hygienes)
because he found that rarely were the same kinds of factors named in
connection with both good and bad work experiences. His findings
suggest that factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and
motivation) are separate and distinct from factors that lead to job
dissatisfaction. He further concluded that job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction are not polar extremes on a continuum, rather that
the opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction, and the
opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction. An
analogy clarifies this point: "One cannot find iiappiness by avoiding
pain, nor can one avoid pain by finding happiness ..."
Herzberg' s theory continues by stating that only the motivators can
cause an uplifting effect on attitudes or performance, and that
^hbid. , p. 21.
COHerzberg, "One More Time," p. 56.
National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 24,
40
hygienic factors produce no improvements, but rather serve to prevent
64losses of morale and efficiency. In other words, hygienes are
prerequisites for effective motivation but are powerless to motivate
by themselves--they can only build a floor under motivation. To
Herzberg, it was clear that the real motivators were opportunities to
become more expert, and to handle more demanding assignments. Herzberg
contends that it makes no sense, therefore, to think of motivation in
terms of increased pay, or some other environmental improvement. In
effect, Herzberg challenged the motivational worth of the traditional
bread-an-butter, as well as the more sophisticated human relations
school motivators. Herzberg's theory points to freedom for the
employee to exercise initiative and ingenuity, to experiment, and to
handle problems of their jobs as they see fit. This control, he says,
leads to positive job feelings, and results in more creativity, more
65production and a greater desire for excellence. Clearly, there s
a connection with Maslow in this theory. Herzberg's hygienes compare
with Kiaslow's lower level needs, and the motivators, or the growth
needs tie directly to Mas low's self- actualization. To re-enphasize
the point, Herzberg says that hygienes, like iMasloWs lower needs must
64Herzberg, The Motivation to Work , p. 114.
65Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , pp. 50-51.
National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science, p. 22
41
be satisfied if a person is to rise above to self-actualization; but,
that the key to real motivation is to promote a methodology that
allows an individual to work toward self-actualization. Gellerman
concludes that this is the real key to Herzberg's theory, i.e., that
since a man never reaches self-actualization (he is rarely satisfied
with himself), he will always be in a state of perpetual discontent--
a state that will allow Herzberg's "motivators" to actually motivate
him. To Gellerman, it is precisely jt;his quirk of always wanting
68something else, that results in industrial progress through motivation.
Since Herzberg considers that the western industrial society has already
been credited with the lower ranks of the need hierarchy (hygienes), his
charge to management is:
... to recognize the disparate nature of hygiene and motivators,and to build more real motivating factors into the system if
management hopes even to maintain current levels of productivitylet alone maximize it.69
Herzberg's continuing theme for a motivated work force is job
enrichment, or as he calls it vertical loading. He differentiates
between job enrichment and job enlargement (horizontal loading):
ilob enrichment increases the challenging content of the job . . .
causes the employee to grow both in skill and feeling of
accomplishment .... Job enrichment provides the opportunityfor psychological growth, while job enlargement merely makesthe job structurally bigger. ^0
^^Ibid ., p. 23.
68Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , p. 53.
69National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 24,
Herzberg, "One More Time," p. 41.
42
His steps to accom|:'lishing job enrichment follow:
1. Select those jobs in which (a) the investment in industrial
engineering does not make changes too costly, (b) attitudes arepoor, (c) hygiene is becoming very costly, and (d) motivationwill make a difference in performance.2. Approach these jobs with the conviction that they can bechanged. Years of tradition have led managers to believe thatthe content of the jobs is sacrosanct and the only scope ofaction that they have is in ways of stimulating people.3. Brainstorm a list of changes that may tinrich the jobs,without concern for their practicality.4. Screen the list to eliminate suggestions that involvehygiene, rather than actual motivation.5. Screen the list for generalities, such as "give them moreresponsibility," that are rarely followed in practice. Thismight seem obvious, but the motivator words have never leftindustry; the substance has just been rationalized andorganized out. Words like "responsibility," "growth,""achievement," and "challenge," for example, have been elevatedto the lyrics of the patriotic anthem for all organizations. It
is the old problem typified by the pledge of allegiance to thef^ag being more important that contributions to the country--offollowing the form, rather than the substance.6. Screen the list to eliminate any horizontal loadingsuggestions.7. Avoid direct participation by the employees whose jobs are
to be enriched. Ideas they have expressed previously certainlyconstitute a valuable source for recommended changes, but theirdirect involvement contaminates the process with human relationshygiene and, more specifically, gives them only a sense ofmaking a contribution. The job is to be changed, and it is thecontent that will produce the motivation, not attitudes aboutbeing involved or the challenge inherent in setting up a job.
That process will be over shortly, and it is what the employeeswill be doing from then on that will determine their motivation.A sense of participation will result only in short-termmovement.8. In the initial attempts at job enrichment, set up a
controlled experiment. At least two equivalent groups shouldbe chosen, one an experimental unit in vjhich the motivatorsare systematically introduced over a period of time, and the
other one a control group in which no changes are made. For
both groups, hygiene should be allowed to follow its naturalcourse for the duration of the experiment. Pre- and post-installation tests of performance and job attitudes are necessaryto evaluate the effectiveness of the job enrichment program.The attitude test must be limited to motivator items in orderto divorce the employee's view of the job he is given from all
the surrounding hygiene feelings that he might have.
43
9. Be prepared for a drop in performance in the experimentalgroup the first few weeks. The changeover to a new job maylead to a temporary reduction in efficiency.10. Expect your first-line supervisors to experience someanxiety and hostility over the changes you are making. Theanxiety comes from their fear that the changes will result in
poorer performance for their unit. Hostility will arise whenthe employees start assuming what the supervisors regard as
their own responsibility for performance. The supervisor;without checking duties to perform may then be left with littleto do.
After a successful experiment, however, the supervisorusually discovers the supervisory and managerial functions he
has neglected, or which were never his because all his timewas given over to checking the work of his subordinates. For
example, in the R&D division of one large chemical company I
know of, the supervisors of the laboratory assistants weretheoretically responsible for their training and evaluation.These functions, however, had come to be performed in a routine,unsubstantial fashion. After the job enrichment program, duringwhich the supervisors were not merely passive observers ofthe assistants' performance, the supervisors actually weredevoting their time to reviewing perfornance and administeringthorough training.
What has been called an employee-centered style of super-vision will come about not through education of supervisors,but by changing the jobs that they do.^^
Finally as Herzberg points out:
Not all jobs can be enriched, nor do all jobs need to be
enriched. If only a small percentage of the time and moneythat is now devoted to hygiene, however, were given to job
enrichment efforts, the return in human satisfaction andeconomic gain would be one of the largest dividends that
industry and society have ever reaped through their effortsat better personnel management.
The argument for job enrichment can be summed up quite
simply: if you have someone on a job, use him. If youcan't use him on the job, get rid of him, either via
automation or by selecting someone with lesser ability.
If you can't use him and you can't get rid of him, you willhave a motivation problem. ^^
^hbid. , pp. 43-44.
^^Ibid ., p. 44.
44
Certainly, Herzberg and his ideas have shaken the literature of
73motivational theory, and attacks have come from all directions.
However, his most recent book. Work and the Nature of Man , seems to
74defend his work most admirably. While he will most likely forever
remain controversial, his theories are steadily gaining favor in
75the business world.
CHRIS ARGYRIS
The theme of Argyris's research and writings, is the dichotomy
of individual needs and organizational needs. His goal, is the
integration of these needs and the subsequent attainment of a highly
motivated work force.
Argyris not only feels that organizations can frustrate human
beings in realization of their needs, but that they may, in fact, be
the souvxe and cause of human problems. In his first book. Personality
and Organization , Argyris shows that if the goals of the average
formal organization are to be realized, the individual will be working
in a situation where he is expected to be dependent, subordinate,
passive and ineffectually utilized. He further indicated that these
particular characteristics of the human animal, attempting to co-exist
73National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 25.
For a summary of later research, further elaboration of the
"motivation-hygiene" theory, and a defense of the research, see
Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: WorldPublishing Company, 1966)
.
75National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 25,
^^Ibid ., p. 26
45
within the organizational system, are incongruent to normal healthy
desires, and that the cleavage between the employee and the organi-
zation becomes greater as one goes down the structured chain of
command, as directive leadership increases, as jobs become more
specialized, and as management controls are increased.
Results of this incongruency are frustration, failure,
short time perspective, and conflict. The employee will attempt to
adapt to these conditions by leaving the organization, manifesting
various defense reactions, becoming apathetic, or by joining informal
groups that sanction the behavioristic adaptations. To make matters
worse, Argyris's research shows that management's initial reactions
to this situation usually reinforce the yery conditbns that created
the adverse behavior, i.e., increased directive leadership, increased
management controls, and increased "pseudo" human relations programs.
At this point, Argyris says that the "psychological energy" of the
individual is working in direct opposition to the overall goals of
78the organization, and that the organization is "unhealthy."
Considering that controls and a well-defined organizational
structure are part of most eyery successful business operation, the
question arises as to whether the frustrations, that Argyris describes,
Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York:Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., 1957) , pp. 1-149.
78Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the
Organization (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 20-23,
46
are just an inevitable part of the price that must be paid for a
technologically advanced society. Argyris's answer is that organizations
must gradually shift from existing systems to more flexible and partici-
pative methods--that the ideal organization is not only one which is
flexible enough to shift power downward or upward, as the occasion
requires, but one in which the entire organization assesses its problems
79and selects the power distribution that seems most appropriate. In
other words, the organization can meet the needs of the workers through
versatility in operating styles. Argyris does not recommend a complete
rejection of the traditional organizational structures, rather he
proposes
:
. . . that the "one man-one boss" method of management be discarded,in some instances, to create ad hoc work groups that cut acrossformal organization lines and bring together people with a collectionof appropriate skills to tackle a given job. This concept is akin
to the "project management" approach to organization or the "freefloating task group" concept in which authority floats withexpertise ... .80
Argyris feels that the above concept allows open communication, mutual
understanding of functions and permits internal flexibility and freedom.
The key is the development of interpersonal competence and authenticity
in relationships between management and workers, which leads to the
equalization and distribution of power and inf luence--so critical
in organizational success. This idea of a decentralized, organization
79Gellerman, I'^Mivation and Productivity , p. 81.
80iNfational Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science
pp. 29-30.
47
with employee-centered leadership, isthe basis of the Argyris "mix model'
81for motivation.
DOUGLAS McGregor
Douglas McGregor occupies a preeminent place among behavioralscientists who have had influence on the business community ....The Human Side of Enterprise , has probably been read by morebusinessmen, and has influenced them more, than any otherbook in its field. 82
Douglas McGregor championed the point of view that management
philosophies have a pronounced effect on employee motivation at all
levels, and was convinced that most of these philosophies buck against
human nature itself. As he saw the situation in industry, the fault
lies with erroneous, and practically unexamined assumptions about the
nature of man --as sumptions that are implicit in most management
83policies. Therefore, McGregor's work, which, like Maslow's, relates
motivation to needs, challenged the traditional view of direction and
control, with a new theory based on the integration of individual and
84organizational goals. This traditional and extremely pervasive
view, McGregor called Theory X:
1. The average human being has an inherent dislike forwork, and will avoid it if he can.
2. Because of this human characteristic of dislike ofwork, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed,threatened with punishment to get them to put forthadequate effort toward the achievement of organizationalobjectives.
81Argyris, Integrating , pp. 146-191.
82National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 11
83Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , pp. 84-85.
84 /
Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960) , pp. 45-59.
48
3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes toavoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, v^ants
security above all.'^^
Gellerman's interpretation on Theory X is most interesting:
There are three cornerstones of Theory X: One is that mostpeople just don't like to work, the second is that a club has
to be held over their heads . . . and the third is that theordinary mortal would rather be told . . . than have tothink .... The world, in other words, i.s supposed to befull of peons, and managing them is largely a matter ofvigilance, catering to their security needs . . . andkeeping the implied threat of unemployment handy . . . .
^^
McGregor stresses that while this set of assumptions is obsolete, it
is nonetheless widespread through the policies and controls of American
industrial management. While he recognized the prevalence of plenty
of production restrictions, and other slow-to-move groups, his
research indicates that these types exist as a consequence of Theory
87X management. According to McGregor, the factors underlying moti-
vation and the evidence of motivated productivity are ignored in
Theory X:
The "carrot and stick" theory of motivation which goes along with
Theory X works well under certain circumstances. The means for
satisfying man's physiological and safety needs can be providedor withheld by management .... By these means the individualcan be controlled so long as he is struggling for subsistence.Man tends to live for bread alone when there is little bread . .
. . But the "carrot and stick" theory does not work at all
once man has reached an adequate subsistence level and is
motivated primarily by higher needs. 88
^^Ibid ., pp. 33-34.
Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , p. 85,
87McGregor, The Human Side , p. 42.
^^Ibid ., p. 41.
49
McGregor went on to conclude that management must provide a means or
create a climate that will enable the worker to seek these higher
needs--needs of sel f-fulfillment--needs of self-actualization-. He
also added that the means or climate must be integrated into the
89overall goals of the organization.
To answer this problem of integration, McGregor proposed a
new set of assumptions he called Theory Y:
1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as
natural as play or rest.
2; External control and the threat of punishment are rot theonly means for bringing about effort toward organizationalobjectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-controlin the service of objectives to which he is committed.3. Commitment to objectives is a function of rewards associatedwith their achievement. The most significant of such rewards,e.g., the satisfaction of ego and self-actualization needs,can be direct products of effort directed toward organizationalobjectives.4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions,not only to accept but to seek responsibility.5. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree ofimagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of
organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributedin the population.6. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, theintellectual potentialities of the average human being are
only partially utilized. 90
According to McGregor, the "contract" between employer and employee,
which pays to assert control , goes against the grain of most individuals,
and sets the stage for conflict and waste on both sides. McGregor
asserts that people are more highly motivated without controls than
they could be with them. His plea, however, is not for an unregulated
^°Ibid .. pp. 47-48.
50
work force, but for a self-regulating one. In effect, he sees this
91self-regulation leading to, and accomplishing self-actualization.
92Theory Y then becomes an invitation to innovation. Perhaps
Gellerman best interprets this idea of innovation:
You design your organization such that it is propelled bymotivation rather than using your organization to suppressthat motivation . . . you seek commitment by setting up
the posability of financial gain coupled vnth the probabilityof personal growth .... The real task of Theory Y manage-ment is to make the job the stage on which enlargement ofcompetence, self-control and a sense of accomplishment can
occur . . . and a powerful motivating potential is yours. 93
Gellerman continues along this vein:
If you pay a man for broadening his horizons and strengtheninghis mastery of his world, he is likely to identify his goalswith yours . . . because you tailor a part of your businessto suit him ... .94
Getting there, McGregor admitted, is no easy task, and has to evolve
from a change at the top--a change that includes a complete interaction
between supervisor and subordinates--weighing, evaluating, and
projecting. It does not include consenus decision making, because
the leader cannot avoid ultimate responsibility; but it does include
mutual trust, a great deal of faith, and most importantly, it includes:
the ability of management to convey an attitude of helpfulnessrather than dominance, guidance rather than control ... it
all filters downward, gradually dismantling some of the fences
'^•Ibid ., pp. 55-56.
^^Ibid. , p. 57.
93Gellerman, Motivation and Productivity , p. 89.
Ibid.
51
that people erect to defend their egos from each other.Slowly the potentialities which Theory X denies and TheoryY affirms will begin to assert themselves. This at leastis Doug McGregor's faith . . . . and a great many of today'smost serious students of motivation agree with him. 95
In the preview to this section of Chapter III, use was made of
Schein's first three assumptions of man, as a framework for hanging
the theories of the giants. Now, it seems appropriate to provide
Schein's fourth assumption, as a means of channeling these theories
toward a logical managerial strategy. In Schein's words:
.'.. the major impact of many decades of research has been
to vastly complicate oitr models of man, of organizations,and of managerial strategies. Man is a more complex indi-
vidual than the rational-economic, social or self-actualizationman. 96
The following are Schein's assumptions of the complex man:
1. Man is not only complex, but also highly variable; he has
many motives which are arranged in soma sort of hierarchy ofimportance to him, but this hierarchy is subject to change fromtime to time and situation to situation; furthermore, motivesinteract and combine into complex motive patterns (for example,since money can facilitate self-actualization, for some peopleeconomic strivings are equivalent to self-actualization.2. Man is capable of learning new motives through his organi-zational experiences, hence ultimately his pattern of motivationand the psychological contract which he establishes with theorganization is the result of a complex interaction between initial
needs and organizational experiences.3. Man's motives in different organizations or different sub-
parts of the same organization may be different; the person whois alienated in the formal organization may find fulfillment of
his social and self-actual izaci on needs in the union or in theinformal organization; if the job itself is complex, such as
that of a manager, some parts of the job may engage some motives
while other parts engage other motives.
^^Ibid ., p. 92.
96Schein, Organizational Psychology , p. 60,
52
4. Man can become productively involved v/ith organizations on
the basis of many different kinds of motives; his ultimatesatisfaction and the ultimate effectiveness of the organizationdepends only in part on the nature of his motivation. The natureof the task to be performed, the abilities and experience of theperson on the job, and the nature of the other people in theorganization all interact to produce a certain pattern of workand feelings. For example, a highly skilled but poorly motivatedworker may be as effective and satisfied as a \/ery unskilled buthighly motivated worker.5. Man can respond to many different kinds of managerialstrategies, depending on his own motives and abilities and thenature of the task; in other words, there is no one correctmanagerial strategy that will work for all men at all times.
^''
Perhaps the most important implications for a managerial strategy from
these assumptions is that the successful motivator "must be a good
98diagnostician and must value a spirit of inquiry." Through these
qualities, he will then be able to draw upon the literature of the
giants, to meet the demands of the situation:
He may be highly directive at one time and with one employeebut very nondi recti ve at another time and with another employee.
He may use pure engineering criteria in the design of some
jobs, but let a worker group conpletely design another set of
jobs. In other words, he will be flexibile ... 99
"ibid.
58lbid.. P- 61.
S^Ibid.
CHAPTER IV
MOTIVATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND TOOLS
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the basic philosophy
of the United States Civil Service Commission regarding motivation of
federal employees, and to relate these philosophies to actual tools that
are available for use by Government departments and agencies. Specifi-
cally, this chapter will answer the second subsidiary question of this
thesis: "What is the present federal motivational philosophy, and what
motivational tools are available to the Navy manager?"
THE SEARCH
The search, by this author for a general, overriding federal
motivational philosophy started at the U.S. Civil Service Commission,
which by the very nature of its charter, is responsible for providing
guidance to all federal agencies and departments relative to personnel
management policies. As might be expected, a library and directory
search located no individual, Lureau or documentation that represented
overall responsibility for motivational policy. Like its definition,
as discussed in Chapter II, motivation seemed to be an intangible
subject, within the Civil Service Commission. However, just as
frustration was about to prove victorious, this author was referred to
a Mr. John D. Roth, former Director of Incentive Systems, U. S. Civil
Service Commission.
53
54
During a brief discussion with Mr. Roth, it was confirmed that
there is no official, written philosophy for motivation of federal
employees; however, Mr. Roth did provide what he considers to be an
unwritten policy base. As he elaborated:
If someone were to ask our Director what the Commission'sphilosophy was on motivation, I'm sure he would say it is
first, the responsibility of agency management to motivatethrough good leadership and good managerial practices, and
second, he would point to the Incentive Awards Program.!
Roth then explained that the Incentive Awards Program provides cash,
or some type of honorary award for beneficial suggestions, and for
special employee achievement or sustained superior performance. He
further stated his opinion that this program if managed properly,
could cover the bulk of all Federal motivational requirements. Roth
supports this contention by an explanation of how awards relate to
2satisfaction of a hierarchy of individual needs. Roth feels that
the cash award contributes to some extent to meeting physiological and
safety needs, but since these needs are already primarily met by the
regular wage plan, that cash alone is not the most important element
of the award. Roth believes that the award ceremony, and the
recognition of a superior product go a long viay toward satisfaction
John D. Roth, interview held in Washington, D.C. on February
14, 1972.
2Although Roth mentioned this subject during the interview,
the text commentary was taken from his article listed in the nextfootnote.
1.: \ :.,
55
of an individual's social and ego needs. Finally, he sees the award
system as making a positive contribution to the high order needs of
self- fulfillment, by providing an organized system wherein the
employee is encouraged to utilize creative talents, initiative, and
3drive beyond the immediate requirements of his job. Unfortunately,
the interview with Roth was far too short; however, a significant
conclusion was reached: although there is no official, written philo-
sophy, the Civil Service Commission hopes for motivation in the
government through management responsibility, and its only formal
tool of implementation--the Incentive Awards Program.
Prior to discussing the management responsibility aspect of
this conclusion, it must be admitted, that there are many who highly
favor, and have great faith in the potential of an incentive system.
Roth in another of his articles for the Commission said:
Motivation is stronger when the work can be made moremeaningful --when it is interesting--when it provideschallenge and responsibi li ty--when it offers opportu-nity for pride in achievement, for growth, for distinction,and for recognition. For the employee who has hadlittle opportunity for challenging work and perhaps less
opportunity for growth, the need to be recognized for
superior efforts is very important. Even scientists,managers, and others who find great satisfaction andreward in their work desire recognition and acclaim for
achievements that are substantially beyond that expectedof them.
4
3John D. Roth, "How Awards Relate to Behavioral Science,"
Civil Service Journal , IV, No. 4 (April-June, 1964), pp. 18-19.
John D. Roth, "ftore Than The Job Requires," Civil ServiceJournal , IX, No. 4 (April-June, 1969) , pp. 8-9.
56
John Macy, is another writer who supports Roth, and the incentive
5philosophy. Macy believes that most people near the top of the
Federal organizational hierarchy quite often find sufficient
satisfaction of basic needs from the nature of their jobs, but that
the vast bulk of the civilian work force, because of lesser respon-
sibilities, fewer opportunities for high achievement, and lower
prospects for career advancement, are quite concerned with recognition.
Macy believes that these individuals are motivated by a program that
will give them special credit when they perform beyond the contribution
of their peers.
During the previously discussed interview with John Roth of
the Civil Service Commission, it was shown that the informal Federal
motivational philosophy was a combination of management responsibility
and inceiitive awards. While the past paragraph has been devoted to
the incentive program, it is important to include that the Incentive
Award Program pamphlet directly emphasizes the vital role of the
supervisor (management). In summary, the pamphlet states that a
supervisor's job success depends to a large extent upon the results
he gets through his people. By demonstrating that he wants ideas
for improving operations, by enthusiastically encouraging constructive
thinking on the part of the employees, by helping to get good
suggestions adopted, and by recommending awards for good suggestions
and superior accomplishment, the supervisor can gain both the
5Macy is a former director of the Civil Service Commission.
c
John W. Macy, "A Cost-Conscious Work Force," Cost ReductionJournal, (Winter, 1966-67), pp. 20-22
57
7respect and confidence of his workers.' In other words, he can motivate
them, and at the same time rec.p the benefits that result from more
efficient operations, reduced waste, increased production, and better
1 8morale
.
As a final test of the newly discovered, but strictly informal
philosophy, the author called on the current Director of Incentive
Systems, Mr. Richard Brengel . Brengel , an impressive representative
of the commission, essentially agreed with Roth's opinion on the
subject philosophy; however, Brengel placed even more emphasis on
managerial responsibility, and added insight to the Commission goals
of establishing strong supervisory training programs replete with the
9latest findings on motivation and behavioral science.
The next section of this chapter will focus on the one concrete
tool available to Federal agencies and departments.
INCENTIVE AWARDS AND THE NAVY
The NaVy Department's Incentive Awards Program was authorized
under the provision of the Government Em.iloyees' Incentive Awards Act
of November 30, 1954. This act is officially identified as Title III
U. S. Civil Service Commission pamphlet, "The IncentiveAwards Program," Federal Enployees Facts No. 1, May, 1969. Washington,D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
^Ibid . ^
9Richard Brengel, interview held in Washington, D.C. on
February 14, 1972.
58
of Public Law 763, 83rcl Congress. The law superceded numerous
existing incentive programs, which according to a congressional
sub-committee, had become lethargic due to divided responsibility and
lack of managerial interest. The new act, charged the Civil
Service Commission with total Federal responsibility for administration
of the authorized Incentive Awards Program. This law, in effect, was
the first recognition of the need for a motivational program for the
Federal Goverjment.
In view of the dissimilarities among governmental agencies and
departments, the Civil Service Commission set forth the following
guidelines for implementation of the law, and since the Navy, as well
as other agency programs are tailored around these guidelines, it is
considered appropriate to list them:
1. Suggestion programs must serve as an aid to management,suitable to the needs of the mission, organization and
~
employees of the agency. The primary objectives are toencourage employee participation through use of the motiva-tional theory of incentives, and thereby improve agencyoperations.2. Authority to grant recognition and awards should bedelegated to lower echelons consistent with their authorityin other management areas. ,'
3. Evaluation of suggestions, and achievement should be
done expeditiously.4. Employee suggestions should be considered for applicationthroughout the entire Federal Government.5. Awards granted should be considered in selection ofemployees for promotion.
U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
["lanpower and Civil Service, Report Covering the Effectiveness ofImplementation of the Government Employees' Incentive Awards Act ,
on House Report No. 885, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 1967, p. 1.
Bernard Rosen, "Stretching the Tax Dollar Through a
Suggestion Program," Public Personnel Review , July, 1957, XVIII,No. 3, p. 168.
59
6. Top management should emphasize to supervisors their rolein encouraging maximum employee participation.7. Effective promotion and publicity should be used to obtainmaximum employee participation. 12
Thus, the awards program theory, was designed to motivate
employees to do a better job, by providing them with an incentive,
which would result in a situation very close to Pareto optimality, i.e.,
everybody wins--the government gets higher production, and the employee
gets a need satisfying award. As Roth stated it:
The awards program in government is an expression of publicpolicy to recognize those employees who achieve more than their jobsrequire, who dedicate extra thinking to making inprovements
,
and who in doing so demonstrate an exemplary committment to thegoals of their agencies. 13
So, this is the basis for the Navy Incentive Awards Program--
a public law. Civil Service Commission guidelines and motivation based
on incentives.
The Navy Department's Office of Civilian Manpower Flanagement
(OCMM) has been delecated by the Secretary of the Navy, the responsibility
14for administration of the Navy program. However, the bulk of the
program is administered at operational command levels through utilization
of authorized local awards committees. The local committee , monitors
specific command instructions relative to program procedures; monitors
the operations of awards program; stimulates participation; reviews
contested decisions; selects nominees for competitive and honorary
awards; assures coordination of the incentive program with other activity
^^Ibid . , pp. 168-169.
13Roth, "f'iore Than the Job Requires, p. 9.
Department of the Navy, Office of Civilian Manpower ManagementInstruction 12000.1, Change 32, para 2-16(2)(a), September 12, 1969.
60
programs; reviews and makes recommendations on awards in excess of
authorization delegated to line evaluators; and finally performs
other policy and program functions to effect efficient and effective
15operations.
A look at an operational level Incentive Awards Program based
on the actual command directive seems a logical way to discuss the
specifics of the Navy program. The instruction used, governs the
program of the Navy logistical activity, ASO Philadelphia, which was
selected for the field study in Chapter V. The instruction is summarized
as follows:
By definition, the Incentive Awards Program may provide
monetary and/or honorary awards for all civilian employees, both
supervisory and non -supervisory. These awards may be granted to an
individual employee or to a group of enployees for contributions which
are either:(l) outside job responsibilities, or (2) within job responsi-
bilities, provided the contribution is so superior that it warrants
special recognition. These awards are designed to provide official
recognition to deserving employees for contributions, such as: the
suggestion of a constructive idea, a useful invention, a special I
achievement or other personal effort that exceeds normal positition
requirements. To be eligible an award, an employee contribution must
be responsible for effecting efficiency, economy or other improvement
in the operation of the government, or be an act or service in the
^^OCMM Instr. 12000-1, para. 451. le (4), September 12, 1969.
61
public interest. Regarding specific responsibilities, each command
will appoint an Incentive Awards committee whose duties were
discussed previously in this section. Each command will also
designate an evaluator and a suggestion administrator, whose com-
bined duties are to receive, investigate and approve or disapprove
awards amounting to 200 dollars and less. Administrators are
responsible to ensure timely processing, and are to provide a monthly
statistical report to the joint command personnel office. Finally,
and possibly most important of all, the following responsibilities
are assigned to line supervisors: (1) initiate award recommend-
ations, review suggestions, provide comments and forward to
suggestion administrator; (2) encourage employee participation;
(3) motivate employees to improve performance and identify those
whose superior accomplishments merit recognition. Clearly, the
real responsibility for attaining the intentions of the program
1 c
appear to fall on the backs of the line supervisor.
The preceding summary illustrates how a local Navy command
administers the Incentive Avards Program. Chapter V of this study,
will investigate, at the same local command, just how successful
the program is relative to its unwritten objective of motivation.
However, before getting into the details of the actual field study,
it is worthwhile considering other expert opinions of incentive
awards as a motivational tool. Nicholas J. Oganovic, former
Director of the Civil Service Commission stated:
IfiDepartment of the Navy, Naval Forms and Publications
Center Joint Instruction 12451. IB, paragraph summary, September 1, 1970.
62
Traditionally, promotions and pay raises are used to recognizesuperior work. Within the Federal Government, the IncentiveAwards Program provides an additional means to assist managers.It should be used as a motivational device to support manage-ment's goals and objectives; however, managers too often feelthat everyone shou'id automatically do his best--"He's beingpaid a good salary and quality work is no more than managementhas a right to expect." This quick to critize, slow topraise type of management leads to employee apathy. . . . Thisis the corrosive attitude which destroys employee motivation. >
No organization can afford to allow it to develop. '' y
Oganovic clearly feels that middle management is hurting incentive
awards in most agencies. He further supports his claim of low interest
in Incentive Awards Programs by showing that less than one tenth of
1
8
the Federal payroll was spent on awards in 1969. Macy also points
the finger at middle-management, for lack of force in driving home
19the benefits of the federal incentive system.
At this stage of this author's research, it must unfortunately
be written that there is more literature that tells of the problems
associated with this subject, than tell of its successes. While the
field study in Chapter V will provide original research on the subject,
a detailed study by the U.S. Air Force will provide advance warning
of the field study results. This study was based upon information
obtained from questionnaires answered by 8,154 Air Force Civilian
employees working at 48 bases in the United States. The questionnaire
Nicholas J. Oganovic, "Management by Objectives and Beyond,"Civil Service Journal, X, No. 10 (October-December, 1969), p. 1.
^^Ibid . , p. 2.
19Macy, "A Cost-Conscious Work Force," p. 22.
i^
63
asked numerous questions relevant to employee attitudes toward the
Air Force Incentive Program. Some of the more significant findings
follow:^^
(1) 73 per cent of those questioned had never submitted a
suggestion during their employment with the Air Force.
(2) The participation rate of supervisors doubled that of
non-supervisors.
(3) Most employees were not aware of the details of the
program.
(4) Less than 50 per cent had been encouraged by their
supervisors to participate.
(5) 50 per cent of those submitting suggestions considered
evaluations unfair.
Again, as shown in criticism preceding this USAF study,
the problem appears to start with improper emphasis and administra-
tion of the program by middle and top management.
Congress was next to criticize the incentive awards system,
in a full scale subcommittee hearing on the administration of the
Federal program. The House report pointed to an increasing trend
of participation, but showed that only 25 per cent of all Federal
employees participated in the program during vi-scal year 1966.
The hearings also found poor communication, poor program admini-
stration, excessive processing times, and other miscellaneous faults.
20U. S. Department of the Air Force, "Seventy-Three Percent
Untapped Potential," A Study of the USAF Incentive Awards Program,prepared by the Directorate of Civilian Personnel, Headquarters,USAF, 1965, pp. 1-5.
64
including difficulty of management to determine award eligibility,
i.e., whether or not performaiice exceeded job requirements. The
subcommittee report tasked the Civil Service Commission with
21initiating action to implement House recommended improvements.
On March 4, 1969 the Civil Service Commission requested all
Federal activities to make the improvements, recommended by Congress.
Getting back to the Navy, the question that must be asked
is: just how effective has the Navy's Incentive Program been in
motivating Its civilian employees to support the Department's
organizational objectives and programs? The answer, according to
Frank Churney, Director of the Navy's Office of Motivation and
Incentives, is that the program is not very effective. Churney gave
three reasons for his answer: (1) lack of top and middle manage-
ment interest at the organizational level; (2) little faith in the
1
program by employees, and (3) inadequate advertising of the program.\
Churney went on to say that he believes that both the current
motivational level and the number of recommended improvements would
remain the same even if the program were discontinued. Churney
thinks the whole problem of lack of interest by management, is due
to a lack of understanding of the vital role that incentive awards
22can play toward's management's own interests. This last statement
certainly supports this writer's opinion that management at all
21U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
Manpower and Civil Service, House Report No. 885, pp. 1-5.
22Frank X. Churney, interview held in Washington, D.C. on
February 15, 1972.
65
levels, does not comprehend the motivational potential of the
program. More will be added later in this thesis, on this comment
The following fiscal year statistics tend to support
23Churney's evaluation of the Navy program:
TABLE 1
FY 1971 INCENTIVE AWARD STATISTICS
Category Fed . USAF . Army Navy
The annual rate of suggestions
submitted per 100 employees .... 13.7 17.0 21.4 10.3
The annual rate of suggestions
adopted per 100 employees 3.7 4.6 5.7 3.6
The number of approved
performance awards per
100 employees 4.0 3.0 6.4 3.8
23U. S. Civil Service Commission, Annual Report to the
President and Congress on FY 1971 , Appendix H, "Incentive AwardsStatistics -- FY 1971."
66
In that these statistics do not break down duplicate submissions, it
can only be stated that somewhat less than 10.3 per cent of Navy
civilians participated in the suggestion program, and less than 3.8
per cent received superior performance awards. The Navy also was
lower than the total Federal government in all categories, and lower
than other services in all but performance awards, where it exceeded
the USAF by only .8 per cent. Disregarding the Navy for a second,
the real source for concern, that is shown by this chart, is the
large drop in overall participation relative to the pre
-
Congressional subcommittee hearings, i .e. , the FY 1966 participation
total (suggestions plus performance awards) was 25 per cent compared
to less than 17.7 per cent for FY 1971. So, even with the changes
promulgated by the Civil Service Commission in 1969, the program
performance, in terms of participation, is much worse. The biggest
crime regarding this situation, is that the Civil Service Commission
only advertises the positive side of the picture--the increased cost
savings over previous years. Granted, the savings are higher, but
participation is lower, and participation is the name of the motivational
game. President Nixon congratulated the Civil Service Commission on the
24success of the FY 1971 program --apparently he has not been
advised that in terms of participation, the program is failing.
Why it is failing, will be addressed in detail, in Chapter V of this
study.
24Letter, Presioent Richard Nixon to Robert E. Hampton,
Chairman Civil Service Commission, November 24, 1971.
67
OTHER NAVY MOTIVATIONAL TOOLS
John Macy lists dedication to "front line" forces as a
motivational tool that DOD has working for it, that other agencies do
25not have. The strength of this so-called tool, with respect to
motivation of Navy employees, will be discussed as part of the field
study results, in the next chapter.
Frank X. Churney pointed out other areas, that he considered
as tools of Navy motivational theory, that supplemented the Incentive
Awards Program. Like Brengel of the Civil Service Commission,
Churney believes that the Navy throws a big portion of its motivational
philosophy into the hands of the middle management supervisory force.
As he put it:
our executive training programs are oriented toward openingtheir eyes to motivational needs, and the instruction includesthe current literature on the subject; however, it's up to the
individual to make it work. 27
Churney added that the Merit Promotion Program and the Performance
Appraisal and Rating Program were also considered as tools of the
Navy motivational philosophy.
The Performance Appraisal and Rating Program is essentially
the civilian counterpart to the military fitness report. Employees
^^Macy, "A Cost-Conscious Work Force," pp. 21-22.
C\
Frank X. Churney, interview on February 15, 1972, Washington,D.C.
27Ibid,
68
are evaluated by immediate supervisors, on an annual basis, in three
rating areas: Quality of Work, Quantity of Work, and Adaptability.
Grades of outstanding, satisfactory and unsatisfactory are recommended
in accordance with the aggregate of day-to-day appraisals by supervisors
Grades of outstanding and unsatisfactory are accompanied by written
evaluation, and are reviewed by divisional supervisors. Final ratings
are approved by a local command performance rating board. The object-
ives of the program, are to encourage supervisors to employ communi-
cation of job requirements, v.'ith the ultimate result being a motivated
employee and improved performance. An outstanding rating in all three
categories, can result in a cash award, or quality step increase for
the employee. An outstanding award also serves as part of the rating
criteria in the Merit Proiuotion Program. These incentives to the
employee represent the motivational aspects of the Performance
28Appraisal and Rating Program.
^
The Merit Promotion Program is the name given to the system
of determining who gets promoted. The word "merit" simply implies that
the individual promoted deserves the promotion based on his overall
record of job performance and other rating criteria. The aim with
this program is two fold, to promote the most qualified personnel
through a fair system, and to provide a system that encourages
29(motivates) high performance.
poDepartment of the Navy, Naval Forms and Publications Center
Joint Instruction 12430-2A, January 20, 1965, pp. 1-4.
29Ben Gershkof, Director Personnel Management Evaluation
Branch, Navy Office Civilian Manpower Management, interview held in
Washington, D. C. on February 15, 1972.
69
SUMMARY
This chapter has shown that there is no formal Federal
philoaphy relative to motivation, but that the Civil Service Commission
relies primarily on managerial responsibility and a Federal Incentive
Awards Program. The Chapter covered the application of incentive
awards within the iNavy, and discussed overall effectiveness of the
program, as seen by various writers, administrators, and a Congressional
subcommittee. A look at fiscal year statistics was also used to measure
the motivational impact of the program. The chapter concluded with a
brief look at some of the other motivational tools in use by Navy
management.
CHAPTER V
THE REAL WORLD
Thus far, this thesis has provided answers for two of four
subsidiary research questions. In doing so, "motivation" has been
attacked from various angles- -its definition, relationship with
Naval logistics, history and most significant theories have been dis-
cussed--in addition, a search for a Federal and Navy motivational
philosophy was conducted, and all available motivational tools were
identified.
This chapter will cover subsidiary questons three and four,
and their combined answers should provide a basis for reaching a
logical conclusion to the primary research question.
The first section of this chapter will report on research con-
ducted to determine the motivational level of federal employees asso-
ciated with Navy logistics, i.e., is there a motivational problem?
Section two will discuss the "why" relative to the conclusions reached
in section one. Section three will look at the effectiveness of the
motivational tools, and section four will relate the results of a "before
and after" study of a logistical work group, and apply the theories of
Likert, Mas low, Herzberg, Argyris and McGregor to tlTei:;^ results.
The primary research question and subsidiary research questionsare listed on page 4 of the introduction to this thesis. Subsidiaryquestion three asks for employee motivational level determination, and
whether or not motivational tools are adequate. Question four, asks ifmodern motivational theory explains the results of a before and afterstudy of a logistical work group.
70
71
IS THERE A PROBLEM?
The research plan to answer this question entailed: first,
the selection of a representative logistical operation, and second,
determination of the motivational level of the employees at this
activity. The activity chosen was the U.S. Navy Aviation Supply
Office (ASO) in Philadelphia, and the steps to- assess a motivational
level included interviews with, and questionnaires to their customers,
their supervisors, their civilian, industrial associates, a group of
interested Navy Supply Corps Officers, and the employees themselves.
Before discussing the research findings, it seems important
to briefly describe the overall operation of the selected activity.
ASO, like the other three Navy inventory control points is in the
Naval Material Command. As shown in Figure 8, ASO receives command
and policy guidance from its immediate boss, the Naval Supply Systems
Command, and technical guidance plus weapons system program data from
the Naval Air Systems Command. The mission of ASO is essentially to
provide supply support to Naval and Marine aircraft throughout the
world. To accomplish this mission, ASO is staffed with approximately
90 naval officers, and 2000 federal employees. The physical plant
includes over 16 million dollars in ADP equipment. Currently, ASO
supports an 8900 aircraft inventory valued at 14.1 billion dollars,
with a 450,000 item spare part inventory valued at 3.1 billion dollars
ASO spare part responsibility begins with issuance of a
prime aircraft contract to a civilian industry by the Naval Air
Systems Command (NAVAIR). Based on technical guidance and program
72
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
CHIEF NAVAL MATERIAL
[EMS COMMAND NAVAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS COMMAND
ASO PHId
Fig. 8. --Chain of Command
73
data (forecasted flying hours, number aircraft, etc.), ASO builds a
program support plan, determines item stocking criteria, and initiates
spare part procurements with civlian contractors. At the direction of
ASO, contractors ship material to 29 stocking points, throughout the
world, for ultimate use by operating squadrons and Navy •*epair facilities.
ASO, and its "real-time" ADP operation is the hub of all support
activity- -from purchases of 517 million dollars annually, to processing
of 10,000 requests per day, to controlling repair of 500,000 units per
2year." This is AS0--nerve center of the aviation supply system. The
federal employees that make it tick are the subject of this research.
The use of a personally developed questionnaire, shown in
Appendix A, represented the means of obtaining opinions from customers
relative to the motivational level of the ASO employees. The question-
naire was answered by a total of forty-four individuals from selected
east and west coast Naval Air Stations, and from Commander, Naval Air
Force Atlantic: cind Pacific staffs. For obvious reasons, the names
of the individuals as well as the names of their organizations must
remain anonymous. However, it can be related that the individuals
selected have direct and frequent contact with ASO, and can be classified
as customers in every sense of the word. They are the supply interface
between the operating squadrons and ASO--they depend on ASO for timely
and adequate support. It is the opinion of this author that these
2Department of the Navy, The ASO Operation _, (Washington, D.C.
Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 1-25.
74
people know the ASO operation, are well qualified to distinguish
between good and bad service, and therefore represent a fair judge
of ASO employee motivation.
Question one simply indicated that two respondents were
civilian, while forty-two were military.
Question two indicated that the grade structure for military
ranged betweek AKAN and Lieutenant Commander. The civilians were
a GS-6 and a GS-11. The military breakdown was two airmen, three
officers, five first class petty officers, five chief petty officers
and tWi;nty-nine second class petty officers. A second class petty
officer is an E-5 pay grade.
Question three indicated that the average respondent had
been associated with ASO an average fo four years. This experience
level is additional proof that these individuals are familiar with
the overal program and responsibility of ASO.
Question four results show that the average contact between
the forty-four individuals and ASO is forty phone calls per week.
Question fourteen is considered the most significant on the
questionnaire, and will be discussed next. This question lists
fifteen possible descriptive characteristics, and asks the partici-
pant to select "any" that best describe the average ASO employee.
The following percentages relate to respondent selection of each
individual characteristic. It was possible, the way the question was
presented, that each characteristic could have been selected by all
forty-four respondents, i.e., each characteristic could have received
a 100 per cent rating. The results in tabular form follow:
75
TABLE 2
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTIC RATINGSBY CUSTOMERS
Characteristic Per cent
(a) highly motivated 18%
(b) moderately motivated 50
(c) poorly motivated 31
(d) hard working
(e) basically lazy 9
(f) cooperative 9
(g) unconcerned 18
(h) responsive . 9
(1) not very responsive, seems to be goingthrough the motions 27
(j) always has an excuse 9
(k) great at passing me to someone else 9
(1) dedicated to supporting the fleet 4
(m) dedicated to himself 9
(n) up to date
(o) out dated 4
(p) others 5
76
The results are rather conclusive that the ASO employee is not
considered to be highly motivated. The most shocking fact is that
31 per cent consider him as being poorly motivated. This poor rating
is further supported by the 27 per cent rating for category (i),i.e.,
not very responsive, seems to be going through the motions, and
category (g), i.e., unconcerned.
Question seven asked for a categorical description of the
ASO employee's reaction to a phone call problem from a customer. This
question was designed as a test of the consistency of the respondents.
The results, as shown in Table 3, do relate consistent ratings.
Category (b) rated 18 per cent and compares to the 18 per cent for
category (a) in Table 2. Likewise, Table 3, category (d) with 27
per cent compares favorably with category (c) and (g) of Table 2.
There is also a shocking indicator in Table 3, at least shocking to
logistically oriented minds. The results report that for category
(e) , 32 per cent of the employees do \^ery little when an item is
not-in-stock (NIS), other than report the fact, and state that little
can be done. Much more can be done, and it is the primary job of
the inventory managers to do it. This area will be the subject of
additional comment later in this' chapter.
The remaining questions, of this questionnaire (Appendix A),
will not be covered in detail, but their results generally support
the conclusion, that the customer does not consider the ASO employee
as being highly motivated.
77
TABLE 3
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE REACTION TO FIELD PROBLEMSAS SEEN BY CUSTOMERS
Reaction Description Per cent
(a) He usually refers me to another member .;.... 9
(b) He is deeply interested, and takes immediateaction to assist 18
(c) He provides timely and accurate status 4
(d) He seems unconcerned, and says he will
get back to me 27
(e) He usually says the item is NIS , and thatdelivery is X months away, He says there is
nothing more he can do 32
(f) He is moderately cooperative, and seems
concerned about my problems. He seems to pursuemost possible paths to satisfy my requirement,including close communication with contractors . . 27
(g) He fakes concern, but really accomplishes little . 13
(h) He does little for me, but tells me about all
his problems 18
(i) He likes to make deals, i.e., I'll get you one,
if you'll give me FSN 3
(j) He seems lazy 9
(k) He enjoys giving me a rough time over matterssuch as priority, allowance, etc. 3
78
Perhaps some of the respondent's comments will serve to emphasize
the conclusion reached above. A Chief Petty Officer, with more than 20
years service, and with 12 years of direct association with ASO stated:
3"They aren't yery aggressive, but they're better than the other ICP's."
A Senior Chief Petty Officer commented: "Even the guy that does give a
damm, and they are few and far between, is too restricted by cumbersome
rules and outdated supply policy." Finally, a Lieutenant Commander, Supply
Corps, added: 'On the whole, most employees seem overcome by their
problem, have a defeatist attitude to start with, and appearnot to have
the personal drive or ability to overcome these problems. What they
need is a long tour on the other side of the fence.'"
The second step in this assessment plan was a series of
interviews with management personnel from a number of civilian con-
tractors. These gentlemen were asked for their opinion of the moti-
vational level of the average ASO employee. Their comments follow:
"Ed, most of them wouldn't last here for more than a month.I've worked close to these people for years, and sometimescan't believe it. Well, to put it politely, they aren'twery aggressive. "4 "The motivational level is low, in
fact maybe even poor. However, it's not just ASO at fault.The problem starts at the initial provisioning, 5 when the
NAVAIR technicians appear to go through the motions ofdetermining failure rates. Sure, we're glad when ourrecommendations are accepted, but they don't even test us.
3ICP's are the Navy Inventory Control Points, previously shown
in Figure 2.
This direct quote was taken from a taped interview with an
official from McDonnell -Douglas Aircraft Corporation, on February 1,
1972. For obvious reasons, the individual must remain anonymous.
5Initial provisioning refers to the action taken to cttermine
spay^ parts requirements of repairable aircraft assemblies.
79
Of course, then when all hell breaks loose at sea, it wasour fault. Back to ASO. If you recall, Ed, during thereal heat of our program problems we had representativesall over the world collecting data, but until you enteredthe program, no one even listened to us. The inventorymanager didn't want to be troubled into making an add-onbuy that would help everybody concerned. "6
"You know you've put me in a bind. Off the record, Ed, I
don't think they really care. "7
"I've tried to talk to those guys about these M61 failurerates for two years, but no one cares until the crunchcomes, then it's G.E. 's baby. "8
. The author will not comment further on this step. The votes
have been counted.
The third step, was a questionnaire to ten supply officers,
now attending graduate school at George Washington University.
The questionnaire data gives evidence of their qualifications to
rate employees. They have all, been either a customer, or a
supervisor of civilian staffed activities, during their average
10 year careers. Examples of their tours include: ASO, Philadelphia,
Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Fleet Material Support
Office, Mechanicsburg, Naval Supply. Systems Command Headquarters,
Naval Material Command Headquarters, and numerous ships. Naval
Air Stations, and stock points.
This direct quote was taken from an interview with a
logistical representative from Westinghouse Aerospace Division on
February 2, 1972. The official requested to remain anonymous.
This comment was from an official from Ling-Temco Voight
on February 2, 1972. The official requested to remain anonymous.
n'his quotation ^eame from an interview with a representative
from General Electric on January 20, 1972. The official requested
to remain anonymous.
J ' i (.J
i'.'
80
Table 4 gives the results of the questionnaire shown in Appendix B.
TABLE 4
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE MOTIVATON RATINGBY SELECTED SUPPLY OFFICERS
Rating Per Cent
a. high 10
b. moderate 50
c. poor . 40
Again, the story is clear--there appears to be a problem. The results
to question four of Appendix B, the "why" answer for the rating, will
be used in the next section of this chapter, which is devoted to the
reasons behind the motivational level.
Step four, involves another questionnaire, which is enclosed
as Appendix C. This questionnaire was developed to serve two
purposes: first, to get the employee to place himself on a motivational
scale, and second to have the employee explain v;hat would motivate him
to a better performance. This questionnaire was completed by exactly
100 employees. The size of this sample will be discussed later in
this thesis. The results of the survey are included in Table 5.
81
TABLE 5
E^'!PLOYEE SELF-ANALYSIS
Motivational Level Per Cent
a. I consider myself highly motivated. I do everythingpossible to satisfy all job-related problems presentedto me for solution. I work at my maximum capacity tosupport naval aviation . , 40
b. I consider myself moderately motivated. I do a littlemore than my position requires, but I have a lot ofunused capacity/talent that could be utilized underthe. right circumstances 60
c. I consider myself as being poorly motivated. I
merely go through the motions. Why should I kill
myself; nobody else does. There is no real incentiveto motivate me
The interesting aspect to this question, is that employees had nothing
to lose by rating themselves as highly motivated, yet 60 per cent of
them said this was not the case. The "why" behind this situation,
which will be examined in the next section, is even more interesting.
The final step in establishing a motivational level, was an
interview with Mr. A. C. Barlow, GS-16, who is the Executive Assistant
to the Commanding Officer at ASO, and the senior civilian employee at
ASO. Mr. Barlow is a veteran Federal employee, with over 40 years
service. He has served in practically every capacity in the Navy
logistical cycle--he has built airplanes, flown airplanes, repaired
airplanes, and for the last 25 years has supported airplanes. Last
year Mr. Barlow was awarded a Presidential Citation, for superior
accomplishment. Mr. Barlow said bluntly;
"1
1
I, • 'I
82
Our people are not well motivdted--neither are the peopleat ESO, SPCC or any other essentially white-collarsupported activity. Neither are the Air Force, Army orDefense people well motivated. The problem is that weare too far removed from the action. Let me add that youhave a different situation at the operating and repairlevel. . . .9
It is considered that Barlow has said enough to close this section.
More of this interview will be provided in the following section.
It is felt that the purpose of the research, just described, has
been served. The research clearly indicates that the average motiva-
tional level of the ASO employees can be classified as moderate,
and that this level has spillover effects in the form of logistical
support deficiences. Since a basic assunption in this thesis is that
ASO is representative of most logistical activities, it is therefore
concluded that the Navy-wide logistical employee motivational level
is also moderate. While some might argue that ASO is a rather small
sanple relative to the entire population of 200,000 logistical employees
in the Naval Material Command, it is this author's strong opinion
that a larger sample would show the same results. The real test is
to ask any ten people, who nave been associated with logistical
employees, what their opinion is of these employees. The answer,
should reflect approximately the same results as shown by Table 4,
the response of ten supply officers who have worked with logistical
employees throughout their careers. The final argument in support
9A. C. Barlow, interview held in Philadelphia Pa. on Jar.uary
25, 1972.
83
of the moderate level, is that upcoming reports of additional research
in this thesis, based on a 44,587 employee sample, show that ASO is
extremely representative of the entire logistical population.
Therefore, the previous assumption, that the moderate motivational
level at ASO is representative of the total Navy logistical employee
level, will be carried forward throughout the balance of this study.
WHY
A total of four questionnaires, and a multitude of interviews
were utilized as a means of seeking a logical explanation for the
existence of the motivational level that was encountered. The
questionnaire shown in Appendix C, as previously stated, was completed
by 100 ASO employees. This questionnaire was used as a substitute
for the questionnaire shown in Appendix D, when it was decided by
ASO management that the latter was too probing. As will be shown
later, twenty-five copies of the Appendix D questionnaire were
completed informally, by an additional twenty-five individuals.
Data from both sources will be used in this report. The third and fourth
questionnaires, are part of an official Navy personnel survey,
and will provide research from a Navy-wide sample that will sub-
stantiate the ASO findings. These questionnaires are enclosed as
Appendix E and Appendix F.
Question two, of the substitute questionnaire (Appendix C)
,
asked the employee to list three factors that would motivate him to
do a better job. Since there were 100 respondents, it was possible
to obtain 300 different factors that would increase employee
84
motivation. Interestingly enough, close analysis of the 300
responses resulted in eleven distinct factor groupings which are
listed in Table 6. In addition, one miscellaneous category has
been added to account for factors that did not receive enough
consideration to form a distinct grouping. The factor groupings
are ranked relative to the percentage of respondents listing the
grouping as a motivating factor. For example, 51 of the 100
respondents, or 51 per cent listed grouping (a), Provide more
opportunity for advancement, as a motivating factor.
TABLE 6
EMPLOYEE MOTIVATING FACTORS
Motivational Factor Groupings Per Cent
(a) Provide more opportunity for advancement 51
(b) Increase my feeling of accomplishment 39
(c) Give me more responsibility 35
(d) Provide more recognition for my efforts 33
(e) Improve the working conditions 32
(f) Make my job more interesting 26
(g) Keep me better informed 25
(h) Provide better training on new procedures 20
(i) Improve the supervision . \ 18
(j) Miscellaneous 12
(k) Increase the pay 5
(1) Improve the consistency of military orders 4
85
Clearly, the higher level needs of the Maslow theory practically jump
out at the reader of Table 6. However, rather than speak individually
to these results at this time, it f^.eems appropriate to present the
findings of a similar question from another questionnaire (Appendix D).
As stated previously, this questionnaire was not used formally during
the field trip, because it was considered too probing by ASO manage-
ment, industrial relations officials, and union leadership. However,
through informal methods, the questionnaire was later completed by
twenty-five additional employees. Question nunber seven, of Appendix
D, asked the individual if he was satisfied with his job. Of the
25 responses, 18 said partly satisfied, and 7 said dissatisfied. At
this stage of the research, it was not considered unusual that none
reported complete job satisfaction. The next question was a direct
follow-up to question seven, in that it requested each individual to
select from a listing of seventeen factors, any that contributed to
his job dissatisfaction. The answers follow, in Table 7.
86
TABLE 7
EMPLOYEE SELECTION OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTINGTO JOB DISSATISFACTION
No. IndividualsFactor Selecting Per Cent
Inconpetent supervision 4 16
Unclear line of supervision (i.e., who's. myboss, military or civilian) 2 8
Working conditions (lack of airconditioning, etc.) 25 100
Personal i)roblems with other in my unit ...
Inadequate salary
Inadequate benefits (leave, retirementpolicy, etc.)
Lack of job security
Personal problems
I don't know the "big picture" at ASO(policy, priorities, etc.) 7 28
Lack of communication (i.e., I don't get theword on many occasions) 6 24
I don't have a feeling of achievement upon
completion of a task, (i.e., I don't get tosee the results of my work) 18 32
I rarely get any recognition for
performance of job .21 81
My job lacks content, (i.e., not challenging,boring.) 14 56
I do not have enough responsibility 16 64
The chance Tor advancement is yery limited. .20 80
There is little chance for personal growth
in my job (i.e., learning new skills) ... .15 60
I am not asked to participate in any type
of planning 5 20
87
A ranking of Table 7, relative to the percentage of factor
selection, and then a comparison of the results with the top ranked
factor groupings of Table 6 leads to Table 8.
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF TABLE 6 and 7
Table 6 Per Table 7
Motivational Factor Groupings Cent Dissatisfaction Factors
(a) advancement 51 (c
(b) feeling of accomplishment .39 (d
(c) more responsibility .... 35 (o
(d) more recognition 33 (n
(e) working conditions .... 32 (m
(f) make job more interesting . 26 (k
(g) better informed 25 (i
Per
Cent
working conditions .... ICO
recognition 81
advancement 80
not enough responsibility. 64
job lacks content .... 56
no feeling of achievement. 32
the big picture 28
Close examination of this table, indicates that although the factors do
not match horizontally, i.e. , the top ranked factor in Table 6 is notK
the top ranked factor in Table 7, etc., the two tables do contain
almost identical factors. It can be noted that the percentages in
Table 7 are significantly higher than its counterpart in Table 6. For
example, the need of recognition drew selection by 81 per cent of the
respondents to Appendix D, while recognition was only listed by 33 per
cent of the respondents to Appendix C. The key here, it is believed,
is in the two v^'ords in the previous sentence, "selection" and "listed."
The Appendix C questionnaire requested that individuals list (or
-\ • -1
;' I ' ,
!
88
provide) motivating factors, while Appendix D actually provided the
factors for selection. It seems logical that the latter questionnaire
attracted higher percentages because of its captive features while
the Appendix C questionnaire allowed the individual more freedom of
choice, and certainly a wider range of possibilities.
Another criticism of the comparisons, is that Appendix C
asked strictly for motivators, while Appendix D requested selection
of work dissatisfiers. Students of Herzberg, would complain that
therefore the comparison should not be made, in that a dissatisfier
is a hygiene, and not the same as a motivator. The answer to this
criticism, is that question 8 (Appendix D) was designed for the
purpose of testing the Herzberg hypothesis, by including both motivators
and hygienes in the same listing. However, the qi^estion was worded
improperly, and for test purposes has been aborted. Nevertlieless , it
is considered that the respondents interpreted the question as
requesting motivators rather than hygienes. This reasoning is based on
the following:
(1) The almost identical comparisons to Table 6 motivating
factors: (2) the fact that the participants did not recognize the
difference between motivators and hygienes, a'nd merely assumed that
the questionnaire, being motivational ly oriented, was looking for
motivators; and (3) the answers to question ten (Appendix D) which
again requested motivators, drew factors which directly corresponded
to the individuals selections in question eight (Appendix D)
.
The difference beti-een motivators and hygienes was
discussed in the Herzberg section of Chapter III.
89
So, if one accepts the above reasoning, which seems logical
at least to this writer, the two separate surveys have revealed a
listing of common motivational factors. The next effort involves
one final study regarding the "why" of federal employee motivational
levels.
During the field study at ASO, it was learned that a
personnel study had just been completed by the Navy Office of Civilian
Manpower Management (0CW1). OCMM, as previously described in this
text is a Secretary of the Navy--controlled activity responsible for all
civilian employee personnel administration. This personnel study is
part of a new program at OCMM, called The Self-Evaluation Program. As
explained by Ben Gershkof, director of the program, it is designed to
assist an activity with an evaluation of its personnel administration
policies and procedures. The basis of the program is two questionnaires
(one for supervisors and one for workers), which were designed so that
a large sample of the activity could by nature of their answers pinpoint
any personnel problems. The questionnaire program has replaced the
previous field team audit, and according to Gershkof^ allows the activity
to evaluate itself--thus the name Self-Ev<ilu,ation Program. Although
the primary purpose of the program 1s to direct attention to personnel
policy trouble spots, there are numerous questions that pertain to this
thesis. The worker questionnaire is enclosed in Appendix E, and the
supervisor questionnaire in Appendix F.
Ben Gershkof, interview held on March 3, 1972
90
Questions used, will relate to the findings of the ASO research
and substantiate these findings with data from this larger sample. The
OCMM survey dated November, 1971 has been answered by 44,587 employees,
which represents a 44 per cent sample of 32 Naval activities. Also,
these activities are primarily logistical activities within the Naval
Material Command, and include:
(1) All Naval Supply Centers (Stock Points)
(2) Naval Air Rework Facilities
(3) Naval Shipyards
4) ASO Phila (ICP)
(5) SPCC Mechanicsburg (ICP)
(6) Fleet Material Support Office, Mechanicsburg
(7) All Naval Material Systems Command Headquarters.
The motivational factor groupings determined from the research done
with Appendix C, and reported in Table 5 will be used as the base for
comparison with the OCMM study. Table 6 is the logical choice over
Table 7 because it was based on a larger sample, the percentages
are considered more realistic, and there is little difference between
the Table 6 and Table 7 factor descriptions. Table 9 which follows,
is a repeat of Table 6, incorporated with a supporting question from
the OCMM questionnaires. Note that the percentage columns under the
OCMM data reflect "undecided" and "no" replies to the question,
except where indicated.
91
TABLE 9
ASO RESULTS vs. OCMM STUDY
Table 6 Motivational FactorGroupings %
(a) provide more opportunityfor advancement 51
(b) increase my feeling ofaccomplishment 39
(c) give me more responsibility 35
(d) provide more recognitionfor my efforts 33
(e) inprove the workingconditions 32
(f) make my job moreinteresting 26
(g) keep me better informed . . 25
(h) provide better training on
new procedures 20
(i) improve the supervision . 18
OCMM Study Data Undeci- No
ded % %
46. I am satisfied withthe progress I havemade at this activity. .12 37
5. I get personal satis-faction from my job. .. 3 29
I. My skills and abilitiesare being well used in
my job 10 27
II. [^ly supervisor usuallygives me no credit when I
do a good job 12 24
There was no questionin this area x x
59. The work I do is
interesting 13 23
48. I generally know what is
going on at this
activity 18 25
25. I have recieved all the
training I need in orderto do my j ob 18 34
53. I do a lot of unnecessarywork *yes 27
also 27,*
From the supervisorquestionnai re
My work load is such thatI have little time to
devote to assisting my
employees *yes 32
92
TABLE 9 Continued
ASO RESULTS vs. OCMM STUDY
Table 6 Motivational Factor
Groupings %
(j) Miscellaneous 12
(k) Increase the pay 5
(1) improve the consistency of
military orders 4
OCMM Study Data Undeci
ded %
No
%
Not applicable
23. the pay is aboutright for the
work I do .... 15 38
No question on this. . x x
Since Table 9 is rather self-explanatory, it is not felt that a
factor-by-factor narrative is necessary. It is believed, however, that
with the exception of the two factor groupings, without a related OCMM
question, that the OCMM percentages fully justify the author's opinion
that the motivational factors developed by ASO study can be considered
as representative of employee attitudes throughout the field of Naval
logistics. Relative to the factor grouping without supporting
questions; the first factor (e) , working conditions, is most likely a
problem peculiar to ASO. The building is not air-conditioned and the
Philadelphia summers are responsible for the factor grouping ranking
in the top five.
The second factor not having a supportingOCMM question , is
factor (1) on consistency of military orders and since even in the
ASO research it was only selected by 4 per cent of the sample, it will
be dropped from further consideration.
93
From this point of the study on, the top ranked motivators
identified in the ASO research, and substantiated by the OCMM study
will form the base of all future discussions. The only exceptions
will be the addition to this base, of two additional motivating
factors discovered in the OCMM study.
Replies to question fourteen of Appendix. E indicate that
22 per cent, of the 44,587 man sample, said that there were no
opportunities for personal development and improvement, while another
17 per cent were undecided. This problem relates directly to much
of the thought behind most motivational theory, and therefore, must
be added to our overall list. The same importance can also be
related to question fifty-five (Appendix E) , wherein 30 per cent
of the respondents said that their supervisiors do not try to obtain
employee ideas about the job.
Table 10, which follows, represents a summary of the factors
groupings, shown with abbreviated descriptions, that this research
has identified as the problems leading to the motivational level
previously presented. Another way of stating this point, is to say
that Table 10 represents a summary of the factors that employees
considered would motivate them to a better job.
94
TABLE 10
SUMmRY OF MOTIVATORS
Abbreviated Factor Descriptions
(a) Advancement
(b) Feeling of Accomplishment V-
(c) Added responsibility ^
(d) Vore recognition /
(e) Working conditions ^
(f) Job content "^
(g) Big picture
(li) Better training ^
(i) Improved supervision
(j) Increased pay ^'
(k) Opportunity for self- development ^
(1) Participative management ^
95
LISTEN TO THEM TALK
This section is intended to provide more detail on the Table
10 factors, in the form of direct quotations from employees, obtained
from the questionnaire or during interviews:
Advancement
"There is no such thing." "I'm a college grad* and entered here on
a GS-5 to GS-7 to GS-9 program. WelJ , it's now four years later and
I've attained my nine the problem is, there's no other place to
go There are few openings for GS-11, and the eligibility list is
packed with people with my qualifications, and ten years additional
experience. . . . Why should I bust niy tail ... as I said there's
no place to go." "I'm a GS-11, and like many other elevens, will
stay one the rest of my life . . . . There just aren't enough
twelve (pen in gs to go around .... Sure it stems my motivation . . .
yes, more than anything else."
In closing this section. Dr. Eric Winslow summarizes what is
happening in this area better than any available literature:
In Herzberg's way of thinking, one could easily say thatthe Federal Government has changed advancement from a
motivator to a hygiene. 12
Feeling of Accomplishment
"Yes, I realize that the Navy depends on us to support
airplanes, but it's hard to see what all this paper has to do with
an airplane." "I just manage part numbers, why I don't even know
what most of these things look like, where they go on a plane, or
12Dr. Eric Winslow, Head, Management Science Department, George
Washington University, interview held on March 7, 1972.
96
how important they are." "Do you know that for a long time, I
13thought than an F-4 'Phantom' had a propeller." "When I satisfy
14a NORS, what happens, the plane might still be unflyable for
other reasons. Just how important is a NORS anyway?" "I've worked
here for six years and still don't really understand the importance
of my job .... Is what I'm doing really helping someone out
there?" "The bi-weekly NORS listing has so many NORS that at times
mine seems very insignificant." "Do supply officers fly airplanes
too?"- "I'm criticized if I don't process so many documents per day.
What does this have to do with aviation. I just don't get much satis-
faction from processing paper." "I'd feel better, if once in a
while we'd hear something from the operating people th^t really make
us seem important, they criticize, but rarely is it constructive."
"I think ewery manager should visit a squadron and talk to the
maintenance people, maybe then this paper would mean something."
"Show me how my efforts lead to the success of an aircraft carrier
deployment." "Allow me to present my work to top management, instead
of letting my supervisor do it. I do the work, presenting it would
add to my feeling of achievement." "I do my job, but the repair
facilities don't do theirs .... the result is the plane still
13The F-4 "Phantom" is a Navy jet aircraft, manufactured by
McDonnell-Douglas Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri.
14A "NORS" is a requisition code which identifies a spare
part requirement that is preventing the return of an aircraft to
fly able condition.
97
doesn't fly, but I usually get the blame." To this author, this area
is one of the most critical. The coverage of the work group at the
end of this chapter will hit this area quite hard.
Added Responsibility
"I am capable of more than just processing paper." "Let me
write my own messages that tell it like it is. I know the situation
better than my supervisors anyway." "Why does my supervisor always
represent me to middle and top management?" "Why does my work get
checked so frequently, and why can't I as the item manager determine
who to buy from and how much to spend as long as I stay within a
prescribed budget?" "Give me, as a repairable item manager, the
responsibility for the component parts. I'm tired of being hurt by
lazy consumable managers." The majority of the comments under this
category can be summed up in this statement by an irate female during
a rather tense interview: "I have too much talent s just give me more
responsibi lity."
More Recognition
Most comments on this factor, made it yery clear that the
individual wasn't interested in great financial reward, but rather
just a feeling from management that they were part of the organization,
and th&t their efforts were appreciated. Some of the more meaningful
response follows: "I've been here for fifteen years, and have never
received even a pat on the back." "My supervisor gets a lot of credit,
but I rarely do." "I get a lot of criticism on problem items, but
nobody recognizes that most of my items are in good stock position."
"The fleet people always criticize . . . just once, I'd like to get a
98
message that So^ys well done." "The only people who ever get
recognition are the ones vyho write beneficial suggestions during
working hours, instead of doing their job." "The rating system is
terrible, supervisors must go through too much writing to award an
outstanding. The result is, that there are few outstandings
awarded. This snowballs and affects promotion status, and possible
monetary reward."
Working Conditions
This factor, as mentioned previously, is probably more
inportant at ASO, than the rest of the logistical environment because
of the air-conditioning problem. Every questionnaire that listed working
conditions, also discussed air-conditioning. The comments all go
something like this" "My capacity for work, or motivation, or anything
else you might call it takes a big dip when summer comes to
Philadelphia. This building is like a furnace, and S'ure, production
suffers."
Job Content
15This is the area that Herzberg calls "work itself." Most
ASO employees, called the job "boring." "It's the same thing day
after day, year after year." "Too much papen^ork." "There is no
opportunity for creativity, there is a procedure for everything."
"This job is bureaucracy at its zenith." "The problem is that the
job is not constantly challenging ... it's not that it's never a
challenge, it's that it's not an everyday challenge." "As Herzberg
ISNational Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science,
p. 21.
99
would say, we need some job enrichment around here." This last
individual obviously has read someihing, and he just about "hits the
nail on the head."
Big Picture
This one is essentially the old communication problem. "I
just don't see my part in the big picture." "Procedures change, and
we aren't told why." "Would you believe that I don't even know who
the Executive Officer is." "If we are having funding problems, or
ADP capacity problems, then tell us about them. We shouldn't be
kept in the dark, just guessing whats up." "I usually get the word
through the grapevine, before I get it officially." "If the A7E
is supposed to get in-house priority, then tell everyone, not just
the A7E people." "We never see the Admiral." "What goes on inside
the MIC?"^^
Better Training
There were two types of complaints in this area. First, the
newer people complained that most of their training conisted of on-
the-job training from experienced employees, but that the trainers
were too busy to do much instruction, or were outdated: "My training
consisted of five days sitting beside a busy old-timer, and then full
responsibility for a range of items." "I didn't learn much from my
trainer, he was always on the phone." "Everything I know came from
1 c
The "KiIC" is the ASO Management Information Center, an
executive briefing room.
•/ 1 .•>
100
making a mistake the first time." "I just don't understand the
supply system." The second type complaint came from more experienced
employees: "My basic training was sound, but we are told nothing about
how to handle new procedures." "The computer has changed everything
here, but we were never taught the new procedures." "A new procedures
comes out in the form of a two inch book, and we get one hour in
training from someone who is as confused as we are." "Install a
new ADP progran, but don't explain the manual requirements . . . that's
how it is around here."
Improved Supervision
"The supervisors are outdated." "Workload is not distributed
properly." "My supervisor wants to do everything himself." "Our
leader should retire." "I think that my supervisor spends 90 per cent
of his time auditing our work. He doesn't supervise anything." "Our
supervisor is too worried about the length of our coffee breaks."
"My supervisor doesn't want to get involved with my problems." "My
supervisor is alv/ays tied up making a report. He's never available to
advise." "Most supervisors around here consider themselves at the
top, and the top means not getting involved." "My supervisor is a
consumable item specialist, he never saw a repairable in his life."
"Who is my supervisor, Joe or that new Lieutenant?"
Increased Pay
While only 5 per cent of the ASO samples included increased
pay as a factor, 38 per cent of the OCMM sample said that their salary
was not right for their job. This could be interpreted in two ways,
i.e., they might have meant that they were making too much; however,
101
this approach doesn't appear logical. This subject was discussed with
Mr. Al Barlow, the senior civilian at ASO:
Ed, I think the difference between £S0 and the overall sampledepends on the location of the activity. For example, its ^^^much more expensive to live in Washington than Philadelphia,and a large part of that sanple came from Washington.
Since pay will not be covered in connection with the work
group, a concluding analysis follows. Pay, to- the "giants" of
Chapter III is directly associated with the rational-economic man
concept of Schein, and Theory X of McGregor. It represents a basic
physiological need to Maslow, which as explained previously ,nust be
satisfied before higher level needs become motivators. Herzberg,
also talks to pay, but not as a motivatorr- to him, pay is a hygiene
or a dissatisfier and like Maslow 's lower level needs, must be
satisfied if an individual is to rise above them to self-actualization.
However, as he put it, "like longer vacations, increased pay does not
18motivate." Whether or not Herzberg is covTect about pay is not too
important to this thesis--there just isn't much that can be done about
Federal pay scales. It seems to this author that money affects each
Federal servant differently. For example, some have been noted to slow
their output when it was known that overtime funding was available,
while others, (the majority) practically refused to work overtime.
Getting home at 4:30 was more important to the latter group than money.
These specific theories of Schein and McGregor, were previously
discussed in Chapter III.
JOHerzberg, The Motivation to Work , p. 126.
102
Further, the author feels that Federal pay is more than adequate, and
probably is better than industry pay for equivalent type positions.
So, since pay cannot be changed easily, and it seems logical that it
is not a true motivator, it will not be discussed again in this study.
Opportunity for Self-Development
This factor was found deficient in Federal government by
22 per cent of the OCMM sample, another 17 per cent were undecided.
This equates to 17,500 people, who don't think that their job provides
an opportunity for growth. This factor digs deeply into the heart
of motivational theory. Here are some of their comments: "Ten years,
and I still do the same thing." "I don't know anymore now than I did
fifteen years ago, about this job." "I think we should rotate between
divisions. I'd love to learn something about purchase, or technical
or finance." "I think a man's job has to keep him learning, if not
he becomes almost dead." "Once a clerk, always a clerk." This last
one seemss to say it all--thisis an area that needs a long hard
look by higher Federal authority.
Participative Management
Although not a factor in the author's ASO research, the OCMM study
indicates a possible soft spot at ASO and Navy-wide. At ASO, 34
pur cent (OCMM survey) said that their supervisors never asked for
employee ideas, while 30 per cent of the Navy-wide sample agreed.
FoUowt-up interviews on this point found a lot of displeasure at ASO.
In fact, seven out of ten people interviewed indicated a desire to
participate in unit management. For example: "I have ideas about
?>•
103
certain projects that just have to be more effective than the ones we
use, but I'm never asked .... No, I don't volunteer information."
"People should have some say in the overall operation of any work
unit." "My supervisor thinks he knows it all, so does the Commander."
This area will be discussed in more depth in the work group section.
This concludes the second part of this chapter. A quick look
back seems to indicate that two of the stated objectives of this
chapter have been reached, i.e., to determine a motivational level
for logistical employees, and to examine the "why" behind this level.
The third section reflects a brief examination of the effectiveness
of the Navy motivational tools.
SOME RUSTY TOOLS
It might be logical to deduce that a moderate motivational
level would equate to moderately adequate motivational tools. Unfor-
tunately, the indications from this study are that the tools are
somewhat less than moderately adequate. The case behind this
statement will be brief and to the point, because the picture is
quite clear--the tools are extremely rusty.
Chapter IV, listed the following tools behind the Navy's
motivational theory:
1. The Incentive Awards Program
2. The Merit Promotion Program
3. The Performance Appraisal and Rating Program
4. Supervisory responsibility.
104
Chapter IV presented a lengthy commentary on Incentive Awards,
including criticism from various sources, i.e., writers. Congress, a
U.S. Air Force study and fiscal 1971 program Federal statistics.
Mobt significant of these criticisms, are the 1971 Civil Service
Commission statistics, which point to a disgustingly low participation
rate at all levels of DOD. The field study at ASO presented the
opportunity for looking at this participation rate first hand. The
Appendix C questionnaire (question 19) asked respondents uhat the
Incentive Awards Program meant to them. Twenty-two out of twenty-
five stated that it meant virtually nothing. None of these twenty-
two had ever participated in the beneficial suggestion part of the
program, and none had received a superior accomplishment award. The
official ASO statistics compared to the total Navy statistics (from
Table 1) follow:^^
TABLE 11
INCENTIVE AWARD STATISTICSASO vs NAVYFY 1971
ASO Navy
Annual rate of suggestions submitted per
100 employees 10.9 10.3
Annual rate of suggestions adopted per
100 employees 2.2 3.6
The number of approved performance
awards per 100 employees 4.5 3.8
IQThe ASO statistics were obtained from the ASO Incentive
Awards Statistics clerk on January 25, 1972.
105
The participation rate at ASO is slightly higher than the Navy-wide
figure, but the adopted suggestion percentage is considerably lower.
It would appear that the answer to the inadequacy of Incentive Awards,
is shown in these statistics. At least to this writer, a program
that attracts less than 10.9 participation (beneficial suggestion
submission) and makes awards to less than 5 per cent of its people,
cannot be considered an adequate motivational tool.
It is also the opinion of this author, that the Merit Promotion
Program no longer h&s any significant motivational effect. This state-
ment is based on the previously discussed research regarding the
low number of promotion opportunities at ASO. The following portion
of a recent newspaper article also substantiates the current promotion
situation:
Promotions in government have almost come to a halt. Moreagencies are tightening rules in an effort to make it
harder for employees to qualify for upgrading.Many workers claim it is unfair for Uncle Sam to change
service and experience requirements in mid-career. At leastone major federal union is preparing to take the governmentto court unless new qualification standards are relaxed.
The get-tough government policy has three origins:
'The White House order for a government-wide graded
escalation with agency quotas that must be met by this June
30, with another drop due by June 30, 1972. As reportedhere earlier, defense has been given a one-year breathingspell, but it, too, is moving to limit upward movement ofits 1.2 million civlians.
'The thinking--now translated into policy--that federal
pay and fringe benefits are as good, or better than those
in industry.
'The tight labor market tnat has increased the numberof qualified applicants for most federal jobs, including
those once considered shortage categories.
Promotions are now so hard to come by that the AmericanFederation of Government Employees is planning an appeal
first to the Civil Service Commission and, if that doesn't' work, to the courts.
106
Promotion qualifications vary by agency and job, based onlegally established minimums for time-in-grade <to qualifyfor higher pay, and experience requirements tailored forparticular jobs and grade levels. Both criteria have been,or will be raised, according to a spot check by this column. . . .
Some Navy commands have slapped the severest pro-ootion guide-lines this column could find. Locally, some units reportedlyhave stretched out normal time-in-grade standards from 2 to7 years and have also tacked on additional experience time
20requirements to the minimums needed for promotion consideration.
Tlie theme of the research, and this article add up to the most ^^
commonly heard comment at ASO (relative to this subject): "Why should
I bust my tail ... as I said there's no place to go."~^
The Performance Appraisal and Rating Program also has its
deficiencies, and does not appear to be a motivator. The reasons
are two-fold: one, the rank and file consider that the evaluation
system is prejudiced, i.e., interviews point out that most employees
think that the "outstanding" ratings go to GS-11, 12 and higher
personnel, and second, people believe that the rating procedures are
so complicated that supervisors are reluctant to get involved. Actually,
there is evidence to support both arguments. Of the 78 outstanding
ratings in 1971 at ASO, 60 of them went to GS-11 positions or higher--
21a figure of 77 per cent. Also, five out of seven supervisors
agreed thi the detailed rating procedures, which include lengthy
written justification, do in fact keep them from recommending more
people for awards. ASO has recently recognized both of these weaknesses
•like Causey, "Federal Promotions Becoming Rare, The Washington
Post, February 7, 1972, p. D9.
This information was also obtained from the ASO Incentive
Awards statistical clerk on January 25, 1972.
107
and plans to take corrective action. If the ASO research is considered
representative in this area, as it has been proved to be in others, it
would appear that another prime motivational tool requires an overhaul.
The final tool, supervisory responsibility is rather intangible,
and its effects proved quite difficult to measure. An attempt at
measurement was made through question thirteen in Appendic C. This
question asked if either the military or civilian supervisor have any
motivational effect on the employee. The answers varied considerably
in content, but close analysis finds that 60 per cent of the employees
considered that the supervisors had little effect on them. The majority
of the similar answers sarld that supervisors were too busy with the
details of their jobs, or that they didn't seem to care about motivation.
This small sample certainly cannot be used to state unequivocally that
the supervisory efforts Navy-wide are inadequate. However, the list
of motivational deficiencies listed in Table 10 certainly fall under
supervisory purview, and on the surface, their efforts to correct
these deficiences do seem to be inadequate.
A LOGISTICAL WORK GROUP
This section of Chapter V, is included to show a typical
work situation involving employees with attitudes and needs identified
77Ed Wolfe, Chairman, ASO Self-Evaluation Program, interview
held in Philadelphia on January 25, 1972.
108
throughout this report. A profile will be described of the employee
motivational level, and the effects of this level on job performance,
before and after the formation of a special work group. The motiva-
tional changes within this group will then be explained through
application of the theories of Likert, Maslow, Herzberg, Argyris
and McGregor.
BEFORE
In 1968, the Navy deployed two squadrons (24 planes) of its
newly operational F4J "Phantom" jets to Southeast Asia, aboard the
aircraft carrier, USS America. During the early stages of this
deployment, both squadrons experienced critical spare parts shortages
and the situation at ASO Philadelphia, the Navy activity responsible
for aviation logistical support, was marked by a high degree of
tension and top management concern. To put it bluntly, the ASO was
not performing its mission of supporting this aircraft. The history
as to why the situation developed involves many decisions, some good,
some bad, and not all the responsibility of ASO; however, the "buck"
at this point and time stopped in Philadelphia. The real trouble-
makerwas the fire-control radar, the AWG-IO, manufactured by
Westinghouse Aerospace in Baltimore. This system, is used to detect,
and then control missile fire at enemy aircraft. Needless to say, a
23"down" system renders a fighter almost useless. ASO's problem was
0-3
A "down" radar system refers to a nonoperative system,
usually in need of spare parts. It is also a "NORS."
109
was that both squadrons were averaging 70 per cent "down" time on
the AWG-10 system. The ASO operation to support AWG-10, included
six employees in the F4J stock control section, and elements of the
technical, financial, purchase and planning divisions. The word
"elements" is used, because no one individual was responsible, i.e.,
a specific job might be handled by any employee in the unit involved.
The bulk of the responsibility at this time, however, fell on the
shoulders of the stock control section.
A profile of these people, based on daily, personal contact
will provide an idea viS to the effect of poor motivation on job
performance. These employees were not the least bit concerned over
a situation that was getting progressively worse. Message after
message from squadron, type, and fleet commander levels was extremely
critical, while at the same time almost pleadtid'^for assistance.
The employee attitude was one of relating the fault of another
division or Navy activity as the reason for this disaster. Little
was done to improve actual support. The employees processed their
paperv/ork as usual, apparently waiting for an act of God to improve
things, or better yet for the squadrons to complete their deployment.
"No one cared," is the best way to describe the circumstances. When
the 4:30 p.m. bell rang, everyone left, including supervisors--the
fact that the fleet was still working did not matter. Finally, top
military management got the true picture of what was happening and
the "after" story began.
no
AFTER
The corrective action taken by ASO, started with the creation
of a special work group. This group, not only improved the AWG-10
support posture, but also had some interesting motivational effects.
This narrative will attempt to present both sides of this work group
story.
The work group was headed by a Navy Lieutenant-Commander
(LCDR.) and included, from stock control, a GS-12 assistant, two
GS-11 repairable item managers, three GS-9 consumable managers, and
a GS-5 stock control trainee. The unique feature about the group
was the inclusion of representatives from the technical and purchase
divisions. In addition, an individual was nam-ed in all other
divisions as the AWG-10 Coordinator. The AWG-10 group worked directly
for the ASO Operations Officer, who is the third senior officer at
ASO. All other chain of command relationship were dropped. In effect,
the group resembled a "project management" organization. The group
had representation that crossed divisional lines, and gave it enough
authority to both purchase and control spare parts. In addition, its
coordinators from other divisions developed a sense of responsibility
toward the success of work group operations. The LCDR. then developed
inter-command contacts and close relationships with all civilian
contractor logistical organizations. The prime contractor. Westing-
house, even sent a representative to join the ASO group. Individual
jobs within the group were designed to give each manager as much
control and responsibility as necessary to do his work. In addition
to the regular procedural aspects of the job, managers were designated
Ill
as coordinators for various activities. For example, a GS-11, whose
normal job was to try and control repairable assemblies, was also
designated the group liaison director for the USS America, while
another menter was responsible for Naval Air Station, Miraniar. These
managers were essentially responsible for performing their basic
jobs, in addition to coordination of all problems relative to a
specific activity. A communication channel was developed that
ensured immediate transferral of fleet requirements directly to
stock points or contractor sources without the previous paperwork
delays. All procedures were, in effect, streamlined to eyery jegree
possible. Deficiency listings were obtained from the USS America,
and emergency procurements were made to airship material to South-
east Asia. Further, daily situation reports were designed to keep
on top of future USS America emergencies. The coup of the group,
however, involved the discovery of the major reason for the AWG-10
support problems (aside from the previous poor employee performance).
This "core" problem was that operationally, AWG-10 component
failure rates were greatly exceeding the predicted rates (which
were the basis of the original spare parts procurement.) In other
words, ASO might have procured 500 of an item to supj^ort a failure
rate of one failure ewery twenty-five flying hours, when in actuality
the part was failing once eyery five hours. It does not take a
math major to determine that the original buy of 500 would not
last long. Corrective action on this problem added another tremendous
burden on the group--a complete review of approximately 10,000
individual items, and additional procurements of over 10 million
112
dollars. This action did not immediately solve the problem, because
of an average ten month lead time per item, but it was the beginning.
The subsequent ten month period was one of "staying on top, or fire-
fighting," i.e., continuation of cooperative, responsive action by
all managers. Although there were some rough spots during the period,
thanks to a new spirit by all ASO employees concerned, and almost
perfect cooperation by Westinghouse, the ten months went by without
another major crisis. In fact, almost ten months later, to the day,
ASO was satisfactorily supporting three addi tonal carriers, a Marine
squadron in Viet Nam, three major Naval Air Stations, and a Naval
Aviation Rework Facility. An ending profile of the group is the
most amazing part of this story. People were concerned, they cared j
about response times and critical messages. Why they were even
working overtime without pay.' They had made a 180 degree change.
These people actually reversed an almost catastrophic situation to a
logistical support success story.
In conclusion to this chapter, let's look at what caused this
fantastic reversal.
ANALYSIS
The work group accomplished more than just improved logistical
support for a jet aircraft. In fact it did some things that were not
24recognized until recent weeks. Hrst of all, the \/ery nature of its
This comment infers that \>hile the logistical improvements
of the work group were widely recognized, the work group effect on the
employee motivational level was not understood until the author
became deeply involved with this research.
113
structure follows closely the Argyris theme of 'project management"
i.e., the creation of work groups that cut formal organizational
lines, and bring together people with a collection of skills to tackle
25a given job. Its structure also entails the McGregor idea of
"invitation to innovation," wherein the organization is designed
such that it is pTTopelled by the motivation of. its people. In
effect this group did set the stage for enlargement of competence,
added self-regulation , and a strong probability for personal growth.
It also represented, in Likert terminology, a "group theory of"'^"""^
organization," wherein the unit head could deal collectively with a
group to solve problems, that previously required man-to-man
27methodology.
The work group established an arena for satisfying needs of
enployees, even though individual needs were the last thing on
anj'one's mind at the time of the work group creation. If one can
believe the almost miracle-like turn-around achieved by the work
group with respect to logistics, then one must also believe that
personal needs were satisfied--there is just no other explanation for
the change in the motivational level of the people involved. In the
25This theme was previously referred to in the Argyris
section of Chapter III.
This statement refers to McGregor's description of the
environment that must be created to breed good motivation. Refer to
the McGregor section of Chapter III.
?7Likert 's "group theory" was covered in the Likert section
of Chapter III.
114
opinion of this author, the work group management recognized, without
28realizing it at the time, a r'aslow-like hierarchy of needs, and
managed the group so that these needs were integrated with the goal
29of the organization. The goal of the organization is easily
recognized as the rapid improvement of logistical support of the F4J
,
and the needs of the individuals are now recognizable as the motivator
factor groupings developed in this thesis, and listed in Table 10. A
look at these needs with respect to the work group, will close out
this final section of Chapter V.
Advancement
Although the work group could liot guarantee advancement, some
interesting situations occurred. One temporary GS-11 job was created
as a result of the group--the man selected for the job was the best
worker in the group. The GS-5 trainee saw good performance as the
key to her GS-7 and GS-9 "automatic" promotions. During the 10 month
"fire fighting" period, the second GS-11 was promoted to the only
GS-12 opening at ASO. The temporary GS-11 filled this permanent
postion, and the open temporary slot was used as bait to catch the
best GS-9 available in ASO. Knowing that this temporary GS-11 job
could lead to a permanent one, this individual "worked his tail off."
28The Maslow "hierarchy of needs" was presented in the
Mas low section of Chapter III.
This idea of goal integration is the theme of the Argyris
section in Chapter III.
115
Finally, another GS-9 in the group was promoted to a 6S-11 opening in
another activity, based on her yery strong performance in the group,
and a good recommendation from the LCDR. What this checkerboarding
iiov^ indicates, is that people quickly saw that the group was building
a solid reputation, and that advancement rewards, though few, were
going to the outstanding group performers. Advancement, as shown by
30Herzberg was truly a work group motivator.
Feeling of Accomplishment
Argyris and Herzberg both see this as a motivator, in the
sense of seeing the results of one's efforts. While the work group
31didn't let each individual build the entire radio, it came quite
close. Wall graphs were maintained to show results of individual
manager efforts, i.e., the America manager could see at a glance the
weekly rate of up and down AWG-10 systems, and the number of missions
each plane accomplished with an up radar. Lectures were arranged so
that combat pilots could relate the meaning of an "up" system, and
trips were made to air stations to look at combat aircraft. Films
of carrier operations were also shown, and a visit to Westinghouse
Aerospace was arranged. Fiost important, however, was the daily
briefing presented by the LCDR, that gave all top management views,
32and a report of the latest "classified' message traffic. The
30Refer to the Herzberg section of Chapter III for a complete
listing of motivators and hygienes.
31Argyris uses the radio example in Personality and
Organization (New York: Harper and Row, 1957) , pp. 146-148, to
demonstrate the effect on motiv&lion, when an employee builds the
entire product and can see the results of his effort.
'^^"Classified" message teffic, is simply a telegram that has
been restricted from individuals without proper security clearance.
116
message traffic reports from the field proved to be the major event
of interest to the employees. The tone of the message told them the
results of their recent efforts. It is recognized now, that these
little things on the part of management meant a considerable amount
to the worker.
Big Picture
The employee was given the big picture daily. There were no
secrets--the good as well as the bad was promulgated. The people were
aware -of the full impact of F4J fleet operations on ASO--and knew
where they fit in ASO's plan for supporting the F4J. This group was
told everything that pertained to the F4J , from engineering changes
to deployment schedule revisions, and they appreciated it. They
33became a part of the big picture at ASO--they belonged.
Added Responsibility
The work group took on added responsibility the minute it
was formed. The LCDR. knew it, and made sure his work group knew it--
the added responsibility was the reputation of ASO. It is a known
fact that this situation motivated the LCDR, and is now almost certain
that it motivated the people. In addition, responsibility was added
in the sense that Herzberg sees responsibility, i.e., the employee's
34control over his own job. The work group empl'jyees were not only
responsible for their regular position description requirements,
but assumed the added responsibility of the previously discussed
coordinator functions.
33I his statement refers to the level of needs in the Maslow
hierarchy that equates to belongingness.
34National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science , p. 21
117
More Recognition
This recognition need, or as Maslow listed it, the esteem
need, has two distinct sub sets: the need to recognize one's own
35competence, and the need of recognition from others. Both were
easily satisfied by the work group environment. As the group
progressed as a unit, and improved support, they were recognized as
a group. Their reputation as a group grew, and it had a significant
side effect on group members. They began to recognize their own
competence was responsible for the group reputation. They recognized
theniselves, and became extremely self-confident. Tlifeir attitudes both
individually and collectively, became one of "just try to give us a
problem that we can't handle." They were also recognized by compli-
mentary communications from all fleet levels, as well as by the Commanding
Officer of ASO. Three of the individuals were awarded superior personal
achievements within nine months after the group was formed. Recognition
37proved to be a strong motivator of the work group.
Working Conditions
Although listed as a motivator in the ASO surveys, working
conditions had no effect on the work group. They had no air-conditioning,
but it didn't bother them. There was an occasional complaint, but nothing
serious. It is felt that the provision of air-conditioning
or
Again, this is a referral to the Maslow need hierarchy shown
in Chapter III
Theof the work group employees.
37This compares with
strong motivator. Refer to the Herzberg section of Chapter III
The attitude was detected during the author's daily observation
k g
37This conpares with the Herzberg theory that recognition is a
118
would not have motivated them to any higher level. This thought
oofollows the Herzberg designation of working condition as a hygiene.
Job Content
This is the area that Herzberg calls "work itself," and is
the area for application of his previously discussed "job enrichment"
theory. While it was not recognized that "job enrichment" was
accomplished in the work group, it most definitely was. Workers
were made responsible for their normal jobs, plus the job of activity
coordinators. They were made accountable for a rise or fall of their
activity indicators--these activities were modular in makeup, i.e.,
an individual had a carrier, or a group of Naval Air Stations, etc.
Also, workers were given freedom to set their own break periods and
lunch hours. All reports on their activities went directly to them,
and their responses were prepared in final format for presentation to
higher authority. In the true sense of job enrichment, individuals
became experts on their modular assignments. Their jobs were more
challenging than ever before--they knew it, and reacted favorably to
it. A common response after a long days work was "You know, I learned
something new today." Finally, their jobs were so challenging, that
they rarely could say they were up-do-date--but again they kept
striving to get there. These people "grew" as a result of the "work
itself."^^
ooAs shown previously in the Herzberg section, Herzberg sees
work-fng conditions, like wages, as stirctly a hygiene factor
39The Herzberg theory of "job
the Herzberg section of Chapter III.
p. 21
onThe Herzberg theory of "job enrichment" was examined in
National Industrial Conference Board, Behavioral Science
119
Better Training
This factor was a necessity in the work jroup, and was
provided. The GS-12 supervisor, was a thirteen year veteran, and was
most capable. The unique procedures introduced into the group
operation, such as a new communication channel, special ADP usage
forecasts, and the total reprovisioning effort, all required explicit
instructions. It is felt that good training was one of the most
significant reasons for the group's progress.
Improved Supervision
41Herzberg calls this one a hygiene. The work group picture
shows it as a motivator and substantiates the ASO questionnaire
research. Supervision in the work group was outstanding--the employees
42thought so, and top management thought so. The LCDR. was a true
"linking pin", and the effort paid dividends. The needs of the group
were recognized, and the policies of the top were passed down with
ease. The group respected the LCDR because of his team spirit and
the respect he commanded at the top. In Likert's mind this is
"interaction-influence." Finally, and most important, the LCDR
43developed a sincere "supportive-relationship" within the group.
Members were made to feel like a vital cog in the wheel, and they
Herzberg, as shown in Chapter III, refers to supervision
as a non-motivating hygiene. As stated above, the ASO research
showed supervision to be a strong motiv.^tor.
The LCDR. was awarded a Secretary of the Navy Commendation
Medal for his efforts.
"Interaction-influence", and "supportive-relationship" were
highlighted in the Likert section of Chapter III.
120
believed that they were. This idea of developing "supportive
relationships" ties closely to the Likert findings in the Michigan
studies relative to employee- centered supervi3on. However, it must
be pointed out that while employee-centered supervision was one key to
the motivational success of the group, it was not the only key. In
fact, a better description of the overall leadership methodology
utilized in the work group comes from Schein, who in his "complex
man theory" points to the need for flexibility. As he sees it,
leadership must be employee-centered or production-centered depening
45on the demand of the situation. This idea was the managerial
strategy in the work group, and is probably the main reason for the
motivational success of the group.
Increased Pay
The work group was not concerned about this factor. Money
was never mentioned. The members even worked considerable amounts
of overtime for nothing. Apparently, their basic salaries, were
46satisfying their lower level needs. Actually, most of tms
group openly admitted that they considered Federal salaries more
than fair.
Employee-centered supervision, was covered in the initial
stage of the Likert section in Chapter III.
45Schein, Organizational Psychology , p. 59.
This is another reference to the hierarchy of needs
portrayed by the Maslow theory. See Maslow, Chapter III.
121
Opportunity for Self- Development '
It is considered that work group membrs saw the opportunity
to learn something from the unique operations that frequently
occurred during the course of the critical ten month period. They
were seeing the big picture, and were seeing how they related to it.
They were learning the tricks of the supply system they saw films
on Naval aviation, and they saw the inside operations of a commercial
contractor. They learned from just sitting beside a talented
Westinghouse representative, and they learned from their newly found
association with purchase and technical group memiiers . They certainly
had opportunities that their previous Jobs did not offer.
Participative Management
Management of the group never reached the continuum extreme
of consensus decision making, but did include interaction
between superior and subordinates, or as McGregor put it: "weighing,
47evaluating and projecting proposals from all sources. Employees
were involved in the final decision, and as in the Argyris "mix model"
the key was the authenticity in the relationship between management
and workers.
It is felt, that in view of the research presented in this
section, that it can justifiably be stated that the work group itself
represented a motivational tool, and that theeffects of this tool
have been satisfactorily explained by the theories of Likert, Maslow,
Herzberg, Argyris and McGregor.
McGregor, The Human Side , p. 35.
48Argyris, Integrating the Individual , p. 147,
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the field of Naval logistics, do present philosophies
relative to the motivation of Federal employees need revitalization?
This query is the primary research question of this thesis, and as
such represents the apex of the author's personal effort. The
search for the answer to this question was not only the goal of
this thesis, but an answer of vital importance to the Naval logi-
stical system.
The thesis was organized around four subsidiary research
questions whose answers provide a basis for reaching a logical
conclusion relative to the primary question. A summary, corresponding
to these subsidiary questions follows: Chapter II answered the
first subsidiary question, by providing a range of definitions to
motivation, and then related the concept of work motivation to Naval
logistics.
Chapter III built a background for subsidiary questions two,
three and four, with a chronological presentation of this author's
interpretation of the most important events in the history of
motivational thought. Chapter IV also presented a detailed examin-
ation of the theories of the personally designated giants--Likert,
Maslow, Herzberg, Argyris and McGregor.
122
123
Chapter IV related that the Federal motivational philosophy
is a rather intangible subject. However, research did show that, in
the opinion of experienced Civil Service Commission executives, that
the unwritten, informal philosphy is one of motivation through the
Federal Incentive Awards Program, and supervisory responsibility.
The Navy philosophy was also found to be unwritten, but is based on
the same ideas as the Federal concept. The actual motivational
tools available to Navy managers, were identified in this chapter
as:
1. The Incentive Awards Program
2. The Merit Promotion Program
3. The Performance Appraisal and Evaluation Program, and
4. Navy military and civilian supervisors.
It is considered that this chapter directly answered the second
subsidiary question of the thesis.
Chapter V, in step-by-step fashion, answered the third, and
most important subsidiary question. Based on response from fleet
customers, civilian contractors. Naval Supply Officers, and the actual
employees being studied, a moderate motivational level was concluded
as representative of Naval logistical employees. In addition, the
ASO research, backed by a large Navy -wide sample, uncovered twelve
major motivating factors (needs) that require Navy managerial
attention. These needs were analyzed relative to a "before and
after" study of a logistical work group, and their satisfaction
proved to be the difference between low and Ingh employee
motivation, and poor and excellent logistical support.
124
While the fourth subsidiary question is not an essential
part of the answer to the primary research question, it was included
to take the research one step further. The question asked if
the motivational theories of the designated giants, explain the
results of the "after" picture of the work group, and the Chapter V
examination shows that they emphatically do. The question was also
designed to show that modern motivational theory has application in
Navy operational situations. Again the research proves that the
theories should be applied to Navy problem situations.
The completion of the above subsidiary question summary, has
led to the aforementioned apex--the answer to the primary question.
In view of the research-backed answers to the subsidiary questions,
it is hereby concluded that the present Navy philosophy relative
to motivation of Federal employees definitely requires revitalization
More specifically, it is the opinion of this writer that the first
step in the revitalization process, should be the establishment of
a formal, written philosophy--a philosophy based on the motivational
theories of the giants of Chapter III. While some might argue that
such a formal document takes the form of bureaucracy at its zenith,
this author sees such a document as a necessity--someone in the
Federal government must assume responsibility for motivation. Current
Federal and Navy management of the subject area is completely unsatis-
factory. Neither the Civil Service Commission nor the Navy Department
have a responsibility center for motivation. Both have Incentive
Directors, and the Navy title even includes T'lOtivation, but the only
policy formulation from either office regards incentive awards. To
125
state it bluntly, there is just no one who really seems to care about
the subject--the real philosophy appeared to this author to be:
motivation can take care of itself. For the Civil Service Commission
argument that incentive awards equates to motivation, this author
would counter that the idea of incentive awards, i.e., "carrot and stick"
theory, not only isn't working (the statistics of page 104 support this
statement), but violates the principles that form the basis of the
advanced motivational theories of the giants studied in Chapter III.
To summarize then, the first specific recommendation by this author
is the documentation of a Federal motivational philosophy based on
advanced theory, and the establishment of a responsibility center
to carry out the philosophy. Part of the operation of the program
would also include agency and department responsibility centers. The
documentation phase, must include a broad study of motivational levels
and employee needs, and should be carried out with the direct assist-
ance of experts from the field of behavioral science.
The next specific recommendation is directed at top military
management, and is based on the author's personal feelings following
the completion of research phase of this thesis. It is felt that
motivational training programs, for officers, conducted by behavioral
scientists, would result in fast and significant payback to the Navy.
The author concludes that the majority of military officers are Theory
X managers, with respect to their authority at civilian staffed
commands. This writer is a perfect example. Until the personal
experience with the work group previously described, it was felt
that civilian employees were paid enough, and had an obligation to
126
perform in a highly motivated manner. Their needs were considered
secondary, if at all--good logistical support was the only objective.
Needless to say, the work group experience, coupled with an educational
experience in behavioral science, have changed this personal philosophy
drastically— others , must have this same opportunity--an opportunity
to see what Theory Y, and other modern ideas can accomplish.
Fortunately, at least for the Navy, there is a glimmer of
sunshine on the horizon. The February issue of the Navy Supply Corps
Newsletter carried the address of Admiral Isaac C. Kidd Jr. , as he
assumed the position as Chief of the Naval Material Command, on
December 1, 1971. On this occasion. Admiral Kidd implied that the
employees of the Naval Material Command must improve their attitudes,
their methods, and their productivity, if this nation is to maintain the
high degree of readiness so vital to national security. The
relevance of Admiral Kidd's speech to this theis was noted in one of
his first major policy directives after taking command. On February
7th, Admiral Kidd directed all the Naval Systems Command Chiefs to
present immediate input for a future program for motivation of Navy
civilian employees. No additional details of this program were
available as of this writing, but it appears that a senior manager
has seen the requirement for motivational revitalization--a revitali-
zation that this thesis fully supports.
^Nancy Dimond, "Adm. I. C. Kidd is New CNM," Navy SupplyCorps Newsletter , February, 1972, p. 13.
APPENDIX A
THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO CUSTOMERS
The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide a medium forobtaining background information relative to a master's degreethesis that I am writing on federal service worker motivation.To be more specific, I am requesting your opinion of the ASOPHILA, civilian enployees, that you deal with in support of naval
aviation. I'm not interested in your name, or the names of those
you evaluate, rather I'm interested in your comments regardingtheir output, i.e.; do they care about the fleet, do they take
your problems seriously, and do they do everything possible to
satisfy your requirements. Hopefully, the following questionsthat I've designed will help you tell this story, if not, feel
free to add additional comments. Finally, I urge you to tell it
like it is. My thesis has been planned to surface existingproblems, so if there are any, let me know.
1. Are you a civilian employee , military 1 (check one)
2. What is your grade/rate ?
3. How long have you been associated with ASO personnel
4. Approximately how many times per week do you verbally (phone)
request information from ASO ? (I'm assuming you vertallyrequest assistance, when a written attempt (message, etc.) fails
to satisfy your requirement.)
5. Approximately what percentage of the time does the "hot line"
satisfy your problems ? (I assume that when the hot Line
fails, your next step is communication with the inventory (stock
control) manager, and this communication is the area in whichI 'm most concerned.
)
6. Does the inventory manager treat you with respect? (check one)
(a) always(b) sometimes_
(c) rarely
127
128
7. Select any of the following that describe your impression of theinventory manager's reaction to your problem.
(a) He usually refers me to another number.(b) He is deeply interested, and takes immediate action to assist.
(c) He provides timely and accurate status.(d) He seems unconcerned, and says he will get back to me.
(e) He usually says the item is NIS, and that delivery is
months away., He says there is nothing more he can do.
(f) He is moderately cooperative, and seems concerned aboutmy problems. He seems to pursue most possible paths tosatisfy my requirement, including close communicationwith contractors.
(g) He fakes concern, but really accomplishes little.
(h) He does little for me, but tells me about all his problems.
(i) He likes to make deals , i .e. , I'll get you one , if you'llgive me FNS...
(j) He seems lazy.
(k) He enjoys giving me a rough time over matters such as
priority, allowance, etc.
8. Does the manager know his item (enter changeability, supercedures,etc.)
(a) always(b) sometimes(c) rarely(d) hard to tell
9. If the manager can't help you, does he refer you to his immediatesupervisor?
(a) always(b) sometimes(c) never
10. Is the civilian supervisor helpful?
(a) always(b) sometimes(c) rarely
11. Do you feel that the civilian supervisor is more concerned than
the inventory manager?
(a) yes, most always
(b) sometimes(c) about the same
(d) less concerned
129
12. What percentage of the time do you require officer assistancerelative to your problem ?
13. Is the officer more concerned than the civilian employees:
(a) yes, most always(b) sometimes(c) about the same(d) less concerned
14. Okay, put it all together for me as well as you can. Selectwhat you consider the cnaracteristi cs of the average ASOcivilian employee. Select as many as you consider appropriate,
(a) highly motivated(b) moderately(c) poorly motivated(d) hard working(e) basically lazy( f ) cooperative
(g) unconcerned(h) responsive(i) not very responsive, seems to be going through
the motions
(j) always has an excuse(k) great at passing me to someone else
(1) dedicated to supporting the fleet(m) dedicated to himself(n) up to date
(o) outdated
(p) others
15. Anything you might like to add.
16. Thanks for your time.
Ed StrawLCDR, SC, USN
APPENDIX B
Thesis Questionnaire to Supply Corps Officer Group
Subject Area: Motivation
1. Hav many years service
2. List your previous duty stations
Based on your experience as either a customer or a supervisor,how would you rate civilian employee motivation:
(a) high(b) moderate(c) poor
4. Why?
5. Thanks , Ed Straw
130
APPENDIX C
Substitute Questionnaire to Employees
1. Select the following description that best describes yourpresent feelings
:
a. I consider myself highly motivated. I do everythingpossible to satisfy all job-related problems presentedto me for solution. I work at my maximum capacity tosupport naval aviation.
b. I consider myself moderately motivated. I do a littlemore than my position requires, but I have a lot ofunused capacity/talent that could be utilized underthe right circumstances.
c. I consider myself as being poorly motivated. I merelygo through the motions. Why should I kill myself;nobody else does. There is no real incentive tomotivate me.
2. List three factors that would motivate you to do a better jobthan you are currently doing.
1.
2.
3.
3. What do you like best about ASO?
4. What do you like least about ASO?
13:
APPENDIX D
ORIGINAL THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO EMPLOYEES
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing a thesis for my master's degree on the subject ofmotivation. This questionnaire will be used during this, and twoadditional field studies, as a medium to obtain "real world" datafor comparison with accepted motivational theory. Your cooperationin completing the following questions is greatly appreciated.Please note that your name is not required, so tell it like it is.
Thank you.
1. Are you male or female
2. What is your age ?
3. Are you married ?
4. What is your grade, GS- ?
5. How long have you worked at ASO
6. What is your job title
7. Are you satisfied with your present job?
(a) completely(b) partly(c) dissatisfied •
8. If you are not completely satisfied with your job, check anyof the following factors that contribute to your dissatisfaction(Select as many as are applicable.)
(a) Incompetent supervision(b) Unclear line of supervision (i.e., who's my
boss , military or civilian?(c) Working conditions (lack of air conditioning, etc.T(d) Personal problems with other in my unit _(e) Inadequate salary(f) Inadequate benefits (leave, retirement policy,etc.T
132
133
(g) Lack of job security(h) Personal problems(i) I don't know the "big picture" at ASO (Policy,
priorities, etc.)
(j) Lack of communication (i.e., I don't get theword on many occasions.)
(k) I don't have a feeling of achievement uponcompletion of a task (i.e., I don't get tosee the results of my work.)
(1) I rarely get any recogrition for performanceof jobe
(m) hy job lacks content (i.e,, not challenging,boring.
)
(n) I do not have enough responsibility(o) The chance for advancement is yery limited,
(p) There is little chance for personal growth in
my job (i.e., learning new skills.)
(q) I am not asked to participate in any type ofplanning.
9. Select the following description that best describes yourpresent feelings.
(a) I consider myself highly motivated. I do everjbiiing
possible t o satisfy all job related problems presentedto me for solution. I work at my maximum capacity tosupport naval aviation.
(b) I consider myself moderately motivated. I do a littlemore than my position requires, but I have a lot ofunused capacity/talent that could be utilized underthe right circumstances (i.e., more incentives.)
(c) I consiaer myself as being poorly motivated. I merelygo througn the motions. Why should I kill myself,nobody else does. There is no real incentive tomotivate me.
10. List three factors that would motivate you to do a better jobthan you are currently doing.
1.
2.
3.
11. Who is the Executive Officer at ASO
134
12. Do the military supervisors really understand your problems
(a) yes(b) partially(c) they don't seem to care_
13. Does either your military or civilian supervisor have anymotivational effect on you? Explain.
14. In your opinion, military supervisors are:
(a) concerned about production only
(b) concerned about people and production(my feelings as well as job output)
(c) concerned more about people than production
15. In your opinion, ASO:
(a) needs military supervision(b) would be better off without military supervision(c) needs military supervision with some changes
16. If you selected (c) above, what changes:
17. What do you like best about ASO?
18. What do you like least about ASO?
19. Does the incentive awards program mean anything to you? Explain
Ed Strav/
LCDR, SC, USN
APPENDIX E
OCMM SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE (EMPLOYEE)
1. My skills and abilities are being well used in my present job.
2. I hj.ve reviewed my job(position) description in the last year.3. The same people seem to get the best assignments and promotions.4. I am doing a better job because of the training I have received
at this activity.5. I- am free to submit a complaint, grievance or appeal without
it being held against me.
6. Rules and regulations I am expected to follow are made availableto me in writing.
7. I would rather go to a union representative or someone otherthan my supervisor if I had a complaint.
8. I am better prepared for promotion because of training I havereceived at this activity.
9. The quantity and quality of work expected from nrinority groupmembers is the same as for all otner employees.
10. Recreational facilities and arrangements are all right.11. Kiy supervisor usually gives me credit when I do a good job.12. My job (position) description pretty well describes what I do.
13. I get fair consideration for the better jobs I apply for.
14. There are opportunities at this activity for self developmentand improvement.
15. Disciplinary measures, when taken at this activity, are fairand within reason.
16. I have just as good a chance of getting ahead as any otheremployee here.
17. My supervisor keeps me pretty well informed of how I am doing
r..> jOb.18. I do too much lower level work that should be given to others
to do.
19. We need an employee group or other organization to protect ourri ghts.
20. I would mind working for a supervisor who is a member of a
minority group.
21. Medical and health facilities are acceptable.22. I can get help from my supervisor whenever I need it.
23. The pay for my job is about right for the work I do.
24. Promotions usually go to the best qualified.25. I have received all the training I need in order to do my job.
26. My supervisor assists me in preparing beneficial suggestions.27. I know when and where there are job openings that I may apply
for at this activity.
135
136
28. Everyone does his fair sliare of the work in my unit.
29. Union members are treated the same as non-union members.30. As far as job opportunities are concerned, men and women are
treated the same.31. I am free to discuss work improvements with my supervisor.32. My pay is fair compared to the ;.ay others are getting.33. I am told promptly when there is a change in policy, rules
or regulations that affect me.
34. This place would run better if it were organized differently.35. Transportation facilities are O.K.36. I nave freedom to do things my own way, within reason.
37. I think they lean over backwards to give minority groupmembers all the breaks.
38. I have a chance to make known my views before changes are
made that affect me.
39. I understand how my job fits into the work of this activity.40. fiembers of minority groups are treated fairly at this activity,41. Bulletin boards keep me informed of things I need to know.42. The title of my job is about right for the work I do.
43. Getting training is important if you want to be promoted.44. I agree with the last performance rating I received.45. I usually can take leave when I want it.
46. I am satisfied with the progress I have made at this activity.47. The training I have received at this activity has helped me
advance.48. I generally know what is going on at this activity.49. I am free to join a union if I want to.
50. I know how the pay for my job is set.
51. I know how to get my classification reviewed.52. I understand how they pick people for promotion.53. I do a lot of unnecessary work.54. I know what I'm expected to do in my job.55. Kiy supervisor tries to get niy ideas about things.56. I get personal satisfaction from my job.57. I am treated fairly and with respect.58. Parking facilities are satisfactory.59. The work I do is interesting.60. I am too closely supervised.61. I know the quality of work expectedtof me.
62. Eating facilities are satisfactory.63. The work I do is important.
64. I know how much work is expected of me.
65. I v/ould recommend this place to my friends as
a good place to work.
APPENDIX F
OCMM SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE(SUPERVISOR)
1. I am satisfied with the quality of people referred to me forfilling vacant positions.
2. Training is generally job and work related and the payoffis well worth the time and effort.
3. Certain related functions could be more efficiently combinedunder one supervisor rather than under separate supervisorsas they are now.
4. During the past 12 months, I have given recogniton to subordinatesthrough quality step increases, superior accomplishment awards,or other means
.
5. I am given the "why" and "reason" of information passed down
to me so I can answer questions raised by my employees.6. Once I become aware of a training need for my employees I can
get the training accomplished within a reasonable time.
7. The equal opportunity program is supported by top managementand other supervisors at this activity.
8. I am not aware of any conplaints or causes of dissatisfactionwithin my group that have not been looked into or corrected.
9. The personnel office provides me with assistance in dealingwith union representatives.
10. I have some employees whose performance is unsatisfactoryand would like them reassigned or separated.
11. The merit promotion plan provides me with good applicantsto choose from.
12. I meet periodically with my employees for the purpose ofpointing out employee's progress as well as areas for improvement,
13. I know the procedure to follow wheji I become aware that position/job descriptions are out of date.
14. I have delegated authority to my subordinates to take actionand make decisions whenever it is feasible and practical.
15. Personnel people who classify, train, recruit, and qualify,have more to say about my employees than I do.
16. As far as job opportunities are concerned, men and women are
treated the same.
17. I participate in reviewing position/job description of my
subordinates at least once a year.18. The promotion system provides me with candidates for my
vacancies in a reasonable time.
19. Members of minority groups in my work unit perform their jobs
as well as the rest of v!\/ employees.
137
138
20. Frequently it is easier to transfer an unsatisfactoryemplo^/ee than to discipline or fire him.
21. The use of position/job descriptions limits my flexibilityin assigning work to my subordinates.
22. Viy suggestions, criticism and opinions are given considerationby management.
23. My work load is such that I have little time to devote toguiding and assisting my subordinates.
24. I usually get my information from the "grapevine" and"scuttlebut" before I get it officially.
25. I have received training or guidance in how to apprulseemployees for promotion purposes.
26. I know wlien tne job/position descriptions for my subordinatesare not current or accurate.
27. I prefer not being a supervisor but it is the only way to get
a higher grade.
28. I have received training in how to carry out my positionmanagement responsibilities.
29. Kiy employees are free to bring their problems and conplaintsto my attention.
30. Employees leaving for higher pay elsewhere is a major problemfor me.
31. I would mind working for a supervisor who is a member of a
minority group.32. I find it difficult to spare my employees for training off
the job.
33. I regularly attend staff meetingswith other supervisors and
maiagement officials.34. I have sufficient autliority to act on matters of discipline.35. I am kept informed of the provisions of union agreements
covering my employees.36. Recreational facilities and arrangements are all right.
37. I have available to me a complete set of posiui on/jobdescriptions for my subordinates.
38. Rules and regulations I am expected to follow are availableto me in writing.
39. The difference in my pay over the pay of those I superviseis adequate.
40. In my opinion, members of minority groups are treated fairly.
41. I see to it that my subordinates know what is expectedfrom them on the job.
42. I am given an opportunity to help plan future personnel policy.
43. There are positions in my unit that should be doing higherpriority work.
44. I feel free to treat union menters the same as I do non-unionmembers.
45. I am aware of the objectives of the position management program.
46. Pay levels are sufficient to attract trained and qualifiedexmployees.
139
47. I get most of my information at the same time as my employeesdo.
48. I have received training in the federal labor relations program.49. My position/job description pretty well describes what I do.
50. I could reorganize rry unit and make it more effective ande ffi ci en t
.
51. I have sufficient authority to place and reassign my employees.52. I discuss with my employees changes that will affect them.53. I received training on how to be a supervisor.54. My dealings with union representatives are satisfactory.55. Medical and health facilities are acceptable.56. I am getting maximum utilization of my employees, skills and
abilities.57. My skills and abilities are being well used in my present job.
58. Eating facilities are satisfactory.59. I view the morale of my employees in my unit as high.60. I have enough backing and authority to do ny job.
61. Transportation facilities are OK.
62. When I do a good job my boss lets me know.
63. Parking facilities are satisfactory.64. I know what I am expected to do in my job.
65. I would recommend this place to my friends as a good placeto work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization . New York: Harperand Row, Publishers, Inc., 1957.
. Integrating the Individual and the Organization .
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964.
. Understanding Organizational Behavior . Homewood, 111.:
The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1960.
Babbage, Charles. On The Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers .
London: Charles Knight, 1932.
Berelson, Bernard, and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior . New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964.
Cofer, C.N., and Appley, M.H. Fiotivation: Theory and Research .
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.
Dichter, Ernest. Motivating Human Behavior . New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1971.
Drucker, Peter F. Concept of the Corporation . New York: John Day,
1946.
Dubin, Robert. Human Relations in Administration . Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.
Gantt, Henry L. "Industrial Leadership." Gantt on Management ,
Alex W. Rathe, ed., New York: American Management Association,1961.
Gellerman, Saul W. Motivation and Productivity . American Tianagement
Association: Vail-Ballow Press, Inc., 1963.
George, Claude S. The History of Management Thought . EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
Hersey, Paul and Blanchard, Kenneth H. Management of OrganizationalBehavior . Englewood Cliff, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard, and Snyderman, Barbara.The Motivation to Work . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1959.
140
141
Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man . Cleveland: WorldPublishing Company, 1966.
Hitch, Charles J. Decision-Making for Defense . Los Aiigeles, Calif:Unive^'sity of California Press, 1966.
Katz, D. , and Kahn , R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations .
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Kolasa, Blair J. Introduction to Behavioral Sciences for Business .
New York: John Wiley a Sons, Inc., 19.69.
Likert, Rensis F. "A Motivational Approach to a f-tadified Theoryof Organization. " Modern Ornatiizational Theory , MasonHaire, ed.. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.
. New Patterns of Management . New York: McGraw-Hill BookConpany, 1961.
. The Human Orrjanization . New York: McGraw-Hill BookCompany, 1967.
Lincoln, James F. Incentive Management . Cleveland, Ohio: TheLincoln Electric Company, 1951.
Lippitt, Gordon L. Organization Renewal . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts , 1969.
Lovejoy, Lawrence C. Wage and Salary Administration . New York:The Ronald Press, 1959.
Mas low, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality . New York: Harperand Brothers, 1954.
Massie, Joseph L. Essentials of Management . Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1971.
Mayo, Elton. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization .
Boston, Mass. : Harvard University Graduate School of
Business, 1945.
McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise . New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1960.
. The Professional Manager , ed. by Caroline McGregor and
Warren G. Bennis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
Munsterberg, Hugo. Psychology and Industrial Efficiency . New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.
142
National Association of Suggestion Systems. Suggestion Systems .
Chicago, 111,: National Association of Suggestion Systems, 1944.
National Industrial Conference Board. Behavioral Science . New York:National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., 1970.
Roethlisberger, Fritz J. Kianagement and Morale . Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1962.
Sayle, Leonard R. , and Strauss, George. Human Behavior in Organizations .
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentic€?-Hall, Inc. , 1965.
Scott, William G. Human Relations in Management: A BehavioralScience Approach . Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1962.
Stahl , 0. Glenn. Public Personnel Administration . New York: Harper& Row, 1962.
Taylor, Frederick W. Principles of Scientific Management . New York:
Harper and Bros., 1911.
Thompson, K. M. Profit Sharing"-Democratic Capitalism in America .
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.
Whyte, William F. Money and Motivation . New York: Harper & Row,
1955.
Whyte, William H. , Jr. Is Anybody Listening? New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1952.
Young, Paul T. Motivation and Emotion: A Survey of the Determinantsof Human and Animal Activity . New York: John WilG:y & Sons,Inc. , 1961.
Zalesnik, A.; Christensen, C. R. ; and Roethlisberger, F.J. TheMotivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction of Workers: A
Prediction Study . Boston, Mass.: Division of Res-arch,Harvard Business School 1958.
Articles
Dimond, Nancy. "Adm. I. C. Kidd is New CNM." Naval Supply Corps
Newsletter , February, 1972, p. 13.
Herzberg. Frederick, and Hamlen, Roy M. "Motivation-HygieneConcept of Mental Health." Mental Hygiene , XLV. No. 3
(July, 1961), 394-401.
143
Herzberg, Frederick. "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?"Harvard Business Review (January -February, 1968), 55-62.
Katz, Daniel. "The Motiv^.uional Basis of Organization Behavior."Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance ,
L. L. Cummings and W. E. Scott, eds. Homewood, 111.:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1969.
Lardner, Fred. "Defense Spending-Up or Down." U.S. Naval AcademyAlumni Association Magazine , March, 1972, p. 25.
Lesieur, Fred G. , and Puckett, Elbridge S. "The Scanlon Plan Has
Proved Itself." Harvard Business Review (September-October,
1969), yO-111.
Macy, John W. "A Cost Conscious Viork Force." Cost ReductionJournal . (Winter, 1966-67), 20-22.
McClelland, David C. "Toward A Theory of Motive Acquisition."Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance ,
L. L. Cummings and W. E. Scott, eds., Homewood, 111.: RichardD. Irwin, Inc. , 1969.
Odiorne, George S. "Motivation and Suggestion Systems." NationalAssociation of Suggestion Systems Quarterly , II (September,1966), 20-22.
Oganovic, Nicholas J. "Management by Objectives and Beyond." Civil
Service Journal , X, No. 10 (Ocobter-December, 1969), 1-2.
Rosen, Bernard. "Stretching the Tax Dollar Through a SuggestionProgram." Public Personnel Review , XVIII, No. 3 (July,
1957), 168-170.
Roth, John D. "How Awards Relate to Behavioral Science." Civil
Service Journal , IV, No. 4 (April-June, 1964), 18-19.
. "Mr. Manager: Take a Critical Look At Incentive Awards."Management Notes , Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Leaflet No. 15, 1964.
. "More Than the Job Requires." Civil Service Journal ,
IX, No. 4 (April-June, 1969), 8-9.
Scanlon, Joseph N. "Adamson and His Profit-Sharing Plan." AmericanManagement Association Production Series . No. 172 (1947) ,
10-12.
. "Profit Sharing Under Collective Bargaining: Three Case
Studies." Industrial and Labor Relations Review , II, No. 1
(October, 1946), 58-75.
144
Vroom, Victor H. "Ego Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and JobPerformance." Personnel Psychology, XV, No. 2 (1962), 159-178.
Published Reports
Fitzhugh, Gilbert W., Chairman, Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. Report to
the President and the Secretary of Defense on the Departmentof Defense . Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government PrintingOffice, July 1, 1970.
Government Documents
Department of the i^avy. Office of Civilian Manpower Management,Instruc^on 12000.1, September 12, 1969.
Department of the Navy, Naval Forms and Publications Center, JointInstruction 12430. 2A, January 20, 1965.
Department of the Navy, Ndval Forms and Publications Center, JointInstruction 12451. IB, September 1, 1970.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.The U. S. Budget in Brief, Fisca l Year 1972. Washington,D. C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Civil Service Commission, "Appendix H, Incentive AwardsStatistics--Fiscal Year 1971." Annual Report to the Presidentand the Congress on FY 1971 .
U. S. Civil Service Commission. "Beneficial Ideas and Outstanding
Achievements through People?" Federal Incentive AwardsProgram, 1970. Washington, D.C. : U. S. Government PrintingOffice.
U. S. Civil Service Commission. "Ideas and High Achievement."Federal Incentive Awards Program pamphlet, 1969. Washington,D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office.
. "The Incentive Awards Program." Federal Employee FactsNo. 1, May, 1969. Washington, D.C: U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
U. S. Congress, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Manpowerand Civil Service. Report Covering the Effectiveness ofImplementation of the Government Employees' Incentive AwardsAct. on H.R.No. 885. 90th Congress, 1st Session, 1967
Miscellaneous
Nixon, Richard M. Letter dated November 24, 1971.
145
Interviews
Barlow, A. C. , Executive Assistant to Commanding Officer, NavalAviation Supply Office, interview held in Philadelphiaon January 25, 1972.
Brengel , Richard. Director, Office of Incentive Systems, U. S. Civil
Service Commission, interview held in Washington on February14, 1972.
Churney, Frank X. Director, Office of Motivaton and Incentives,U. S. Department of the Navy, interview held in Washingtonon February 15, 1972.
•a
Gershkof, Director, Personnel Management Evaluation Branch, NavyOffice of Civilian Manpower Personnel, interview held in
Washington, on February 15, 1972.
Roth, John D. Former Director, Office of Incentive Systems, U.S.
Civil Service Commission, interview held in Washington on
February 14, 1972.
Winslow, Eric. Ph.D., Head, Management Science Department, Schoolof Government and Business Administration, George WashingtonUniversity, interview held on March 7, 1972.
Wolf, Ed. Chairman, ASO Self-Evaluation Program, interview heldin Philadelphia on January 25, 1972.
Thesis 134440S789 Straw
The Federal employee,naval logistics and moti-vation.
thesS789
'^mlltf ^"^P'oyee, naval logistics an
3 2768 002 02069 5DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY
top related